f 


PHINCETON,    N.    J. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


MERCERSBURG   THEOLOGY 


INCONSISTENT 


WITH  PROTESTANT  AND  REFORMED 
DOCTRINE. 


B.   S.    SCHNECK,   D.D. 


Be  not  carried  about  with  divers  and  strange  doctrines.     For  it  is  a  good  thing  that 
the  heart  be  established  with  grace. — Heb.  xiii.  9. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

J.    B.    LIPPINCOTT    &    CO. 

chambersburg: 
J.  N.  SNIDER. 

CI  NC  I  N  NAT  I  : 

OFFICE  "CHRISTIAN  WORLD,"  178   ELM   ST. 
1874. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1874,  ^Y 

B.    S.   SCHNECK,   D.D., 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington. 

Right  of  Translation  Reserved. 


INSTEAD   OF  A  PREFACE. 


[The  following  letter  from  an  esteemed  ministerial  brother  tells  all 
that  is  necessary  to  be  said  in  the  way  of  motive  for  preparing  the  fol- 
lowing work.  This  letter  and  its  author,  therefore,  must  be  regarded 
as  sharing  the  chief  responsibility  in  an  undertaking  which,  in  itself, 
had  no  attractions  for  me  in  any  view  of  the  case.] 

"Reverend  and  Dear  Brother: 

******** 
"Like  yourself,  I  have  taken  no  part  in  the  unfortunate 
controversies  which  have  been  going  on  for  years  in  our 
Church.  Honestly  believing  that  matters  were  not  so  grave 
and  serious  as  some  supposed,  and  confiding  in  the  oft- 
repeated  declaration  that  our  professors  and  others  were 
misunderstood,  I  was  led  to  exercise  to  the  utmost  that 
charity  which  '  hopeth  all  things  and  believeth  all  things.' 
And  so  I  was  even  disposed  to  defend  these  brethren.  In 
ecclesiastical  affairs  I  also  stood  by  them.  Yet  I  had  to 
acknowledge  to  myself  all  the  while  that  in  defending 
their  teachings — for  instance,  against  Messrs.  Bomberger, 
Good,  Williard,  etc. — there  was  often  a  want  of  manly 
candor  and  an  effort  to  avoid  meeting  the  weightier  points 
in  dispute.  Thus,  when  proofs  were  furnished  from  his- 
tory by  those  brethren  against  some  of  the  doctrinal  teach- 
ings by  the  professors,  those  proofs  were  as  often  not  no- 
ticed. When  Reformed  standards  were  quoted  as  against 
the  professors  on  some  of  the  gravest  questions,  that  was 
quietly  passed  by.  But  when  a  little  flaw  in  an  opponent 
was  thought  to  be  discovered,  then  there  was  a  loud  trum- 
pet sounded  in  regard  to  it,  winding  up  with  what  looked 
very  much  like  gauzy  cunning,  by  telling  the  reader  that 
'  such  was  the  way  with  every  thing  which  came  from 
that  side,  and  hence  it  was  not  worth  while  to  notice  the 
opponents.'  Thus,  some  Western  writer,  it  seems,  had  said 
something  in  reference  to  the  present  or  revised  Liturgy 


vi  INSTEAD    OF  A   PREFACE. 

(*  Order  of  Worship'),  and  called  it  the  'new  Order  of 
Worship'  (or  perhaps  '  New  Order  of  Worship').  That 
was  a  life-and-death  question  !  To  put  the  word  new  be- 
fore the  title  was  an  offense  of  very  grave  magnitude;  and 
so  the  Western  man  is  pounced  upon  with  ludicrous  fero- 
city, and  duly  informed,  'as  in  such  cases  made  and  pro- 
vided,' that  if  a  man  does  not  study  and  duly  know  the 
proper  and  authorized  title  of  a  book,  he  is  incompetent 
to  write  on  the  subject  of  the  book,  or  for  that  matter,  I 
suppose,  on  any  other  subject.  Now  look  at  it.  The  re- 
vised Liturgy  ('Order  of  Worship')  is  the  'new,'  as 
compared  with  the  former  or  first  Liturgy  by  the  com- 
mittee, and  has  been  so  called  over  and  over  again  by  its 
own  friends  in  the  Messenger,  and  has  been  so  called  even 
by  Dr.  Nevin  himself,  the  chief  author  of  the  book!  (See 
Vindic.  of  Lit,,  p.  51,  etc.)  Now,  sucli  and  similar  things 
have  all  along  been  noticed  by  myself  and  others  with  pain, 
but  I  refrained  from  dwelling  upon  them.  So  also  the  late 
effort  to  cast  reproach  upon  Dr.  B.,  Dr.  G.,  and  others,  in 
connection  with  the  conversion  of  several  of  our  minis- 
ters to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  had  a  most  painful 
effect  upon  my  mind  ;  and  several  others,  ministers  and 
laymen,  I  found,  were  impressed  in  the  same  way.  I 
looked  at  it  in  this  way.  Here  are  several  men  who 
were  among  the  leaders  of  the  Mercersburg  theology. 
They  wrote  fiery  articles  about  it,  and  some  of  them  bitter 
articles  against  some  of  the  best  and  most  useful  men  in  our 
Church, — men  whom,  although  I  differed  from  them  in  some 
things,  I  could  not  but  respect  and  honor.  For  years  it 
had  been  believed  that  those  recent  converts  were  traveling 
towards  Rome,  but  when  it  was  sometimes  hinted  at,  not 
only  those  men  themselves  denied  it  but  our  professors  and 
others  publicly  denied  that  the  theological  system  of  Mer- 
cersburg could  lead  any  one  to  that  'citadel  of  safety.' 
But  one  and  another  at  last  did  get  there,  and  then  they 
said,  frankly  and  openly,  that  the  teaching  at  Mercersburg 
led  them  step  by  step  thitherward.  And  when  now  the 
opponents  of  Mercersburg  pointed  to  these  confessions 
(Geo.  D.  Wolffs  confession,  for  instance),  the  professors 
et  al.  raise  the  mordio  cry  of:  Our  opponents  (Dr.  B.  et 
al.)  are  'leagued  with  the  perverts' — 'Wolff  writes  arti- 
cles for  the  anti-Liturgical  men,'  etc.     I  confess  to  you, 


INSTEAD   OF  A   PREFACE.  yii 

dear  brother,  that  such  disingenuous  treatment,  even  of 
my  opponents  as  well  as  theirs,  is  more  than  I  could  stand, 
and  made  me  hesitate — falter.  I  now  concluded  to  ex- 
amine more  closely  into  the  merits  of  the  general  question 
at  issue,  to  endeavor  to  get,  if  possible,  to  the  bottom  of 
things.  I  said  to  myself.  You  have  not  studied  these  sub- 
jects as  you  should  have  done  ;  you  have  taken  things  on 
trust.  And  I  had  not  fairly  gotten  into  the  matter  before 
my  paper  brought  me  the  bold — I  feel  like  saying  daring — 
attacks  upon  the  most  precious  and  consoling  truth  in  the 
Christian  system,  and  which  is  so  fully  and  clearly  set 
forth  in  our  Catechism.  You  know  to  what  I  refer, — to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.   .   .   . 

"  On  further  reading,  I  found  that  the  same  antagonism 
had  also  been  shown  against  other  cardinal  truths, — ^justifica- 
tion by  faith,  for  instance ;  but  not  so  boldly,  more  nega- 
tively than  positively.  I  began  now  also  to  understand 
the  frequent  thrusts,  innuendoes,  and  slighting  remarks  in 
regard  to  the  Scriptures  (making  an  '  idol  of  them,'  and 
saying  that,  apart  from  the  living  minister  (priest),  they 
were  of  no  more  account  than  the  Koran  !) ;  to  doctrines, 
etc.,  as  if  they  were  of  very  little  account ;  and  speaking  of 
others,  who  believe  that  they  are  justified  by  faith,  that 
they  believed  in  what  was  'justification  by  fancy  or  feel- 
ing,' and  more  than  insinuating  that  all  real  inward 
operations  of  the  mind  were  shams  in  a  religious  way, — 
the  experimental  piety,  in  other  words,  'of  reigning  Prot- 
estantism' was  branded  as  a  'false  spiritualism,'  as  'Phry- 
gian Montanism,'  ranting,  demented  'fanaticism' — as 
an  order  of  'nature,'  —  in  short,  bad  as  Sinbad  the 
Sailor.    .    .   . 

"My  heart  is  full  as  I  write.  I  think  of  the  glorious 
truths  which  you  and  I  have  preached,  and  without  which 
we  would  not  know  what  preaching  was  for,  or  of  what 
worth  it  was.  I  think  of  the  dying  Christian  whom  I 
have  seen  clasping  these  truths  to  his  heart  as  the  only 
balm  for  his  spirit,  the  only  cordial  for  his  fears.  I  think 
of  the  blessed  martyrs,  not  only  in  Apostolic  times, 
but  in  later  centuries,  who,  rather  than  bow  down  and  wor- 
ship saint  and  crucifix,  chose  rather  to  go  to  the  stake  or 
the  fire,  warmed  within  and  armed  for  the  ordeal  by  the 
experimental  tru til  of  Christ  and  Him  crucified  as  a  living 


viii  INSTEAD    OF  A    PREFACE. 

power  in  their  hearts ;  and  I  rose  up  from  my  study-chair, 
and,  whilst  pacing  the  room  in  the  dead  silence  of  night, 
I  solemnly  vowed  to  be  bound  by  personal  and  social  ties 
no  longer  in  this  matter,  but,  if  need  be,  brave  the  un- 
friendly looks  of  some  otherwise  dear  brethren ;  for  truth 
is  higher  than  friendship. 

"  For  at  least  ten  years  had  I  waited  to  find  out  where 
exactly  those  new  views  would  lead  us, — ten  years  trying  to 
understand  these  brethren,  fondly  hoping,  like  not  a  few 
others,  that  the  fog  would  clear  away  and  bring  us  a 
brighter  day.  But  the  day  came  not.  '  You  do  not  un- 
derstand them,'  had  been  iterated  and  reiterated  until  I 
became  wearied  with  the  phrasing.  I  said  at  last,  '  Why 
cannot  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  pupils  write  in  such  a  manner  that 
intelligent  men  can  understand  them  ?'  We  can  understand 
Neander  (awkwardly  as  he  often  did  express  himself).  We 
can  understand  Hengstenberg,  and  De  Wette,  and  Ebrard, 
and  Dorner,  and  Nitzsch,  and  Hodge.  We  can  understand 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
Apostles.  Why,  then,  after  a  practice  of  more  than  twenty 
years,  can  these  men  not  write  so  that  other  mortals  can 
understand  them  ?  If  a  man  has  something  to  say  and 
wants  others  to  know  it  (without  any  reserve  on  his  part), 
he  generally  can  make  himself  understood.  It  is  said  not 
to  be  learning,  but  the  want  of  learning,  that  renders  men 
unintelligible.  Dr.  Hodge  had  to  say  of  his  old  friend  Dr. 
Nevin  (on  the  appearance  of  the  latter's  introduction  to 
Dr.  Schaff's  'Principles  of  Protestantism,'  and  that  was  as 
long  ago  as  a.d.  1845),  that  he  found  it  difficult  to  under- 
stand him.  Surely,  if  such  a  man  could  not,  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  if  men  of  ordinary  calibre  cannot.  If  a 
preacher  of  the  gospel  cannot  make  himself  understood,  it 
is  usually  said,  either  that  the  truth  is  not  clear  to  his  own 
mind,  or  that  he  does  not  venture  to  speak  out  courage- 
ously what  is  in  him.      Is  it  not  so? 

"But  I  think  that  of  late  we  do  understand  these  men 
tolerably  well.  When  the  articles  on  '  Early  Christianity,' 
*  Cyprian,'  etc.,  appeared.  Dr.  Nevin  was  merely  attacking 
\\\t.form  of  Protestantism,  pulling  down,  ignoring  (I  cannot 
help  being  reminded  of  '^Ich  Inn  der  Geist  dcr  stets  verneinf)  ; 
then  came  the  attack  against  the  'Sects'  (Dr.  Schaff  called 
it  ^  eine  Sektenschlacht' ),  harsh,  bitter,  as  if  the  pen  had 


INSTEAD   OF  A   PREFACE.  Jx 

been  dipped  in  bitter  fluid :  so  I  thought  when  I  first  read 
it,  with  all  my  respect  for  the  writer.  Such  thoughts  as 
these  came  into  my  mind  :  Doctor,  who  gives  thee  authority 
to  strike  thy  fellow-servant,  redeemed  by  the  precious  blood 
of  the  same  Saviour?  Is  it  not  the  spirit  of  the  two  disci- 
ples whom  the  Divine  Master  rebuked  for  calling  down  fire 
upon  their  fellow-sinners?  And  then,  art  not  thou  a  secta- 
rist  thyself?  Where  is  thy  apostolical  succession,  unbroken 
down  to  this  present?  And  where  is  thy  '■  Cliurch'  ?  .  .  . 
Then  came  the  tinkering  with  the  8oth  Question  of  the 
Catechism,  which  also  at  that  time  affected  me  adversely. 
It  was  pronounced  '  unfortunate'  that  the  '  mass'  should  be 
called  an  'idolatry,'  and  of  course  all  'we  boys'  took  up 
the  refrain,  according  to  the  German  couplet, — 

'  Wie  die  Alten  sungen 
Zwitschern  die  yungen.^ 

Next  the  '  Creed'  had  to  be  tinkered  ;  the  Greek  word 
hades  must  be  put  in  the  place  of  hell.  Cut  bono  ?  The 
universal  Church,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  have  used  this 
last  term.  Every  intelligent  layman  knew  its  import. 
Who  gave,  moreover,  a  few  men  the  authority  to  produce 
a  dissonance  in  the  repeating  of  the  Creed  ?  A  synodical 
president  must  tell  us,  too,  that  the  Reformers  went  too  far 
in  their  work,  etc.,  etc.   .   .   . 

"  Now,  my  dear  brother,  all  these  things  have  been 
much  on  my  mind  ;  and,  to  bring  the  matter  to  the  point 
which  is  the  aim  of  this  long  epistle,  let  me  say  that  I 
regard  it  as  the  duty  of  some  one  to  speak  forth  calmly, 
but  decidedly  and  intelligibly,  so  that  all  may  understand 
what  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  and  what  are  not.  And 
I  have  it  in  my  mind  to  say.  you  are  the  person.  Your  age 
and  experience,  your  former  position  as  a  public  man,  and 
your  known  conservatism,  seem  to  single  you  out  before 
others  to  do  just  this  work.  Besides,  although  you  were 
the  first  man  who,  twenty  odd  years  ago,  sounded  the  first 
'  bugle-blast,'  as  '  Irenaeus'  lately  told  us  in  the  Messenger, 
yet  you  have  not  taken  any  part,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  the 
controversies  for  years.  You  are  known,  moreover,  to  have 
been  the  friend  personally  of  our  professors ;  known  to 
have  first  mentioned,  and  had  proposed  through  another, 
the   name   of  Dr.    Nevin    as   professor    in    our   seminary 


X  INSTEAD    OF  A   PREFACE. 

(prompted  by  your  'better  half),  as  the  lamented  Rev. 
John  Cares  in  his  lifetime  said,  who  during  the  special 
Synod  in  Chambersburg  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  fact  in 
your  own  house.  Then,  too,  you  have,  so  far  as  I  know, 
no  reason  to  be  dissatisfied  with  the  Church's  treatment  of 
yourself;  for  she  has  in  her  time  loaded  you  with  a  con- 
siderable share  of  duties  and  onerous  burdens,  which  some 
men  would  perhaps  count  as  so  much  honor.  All  this  and 
more,  it  seeiiis  to  me,  fits  you  for  this  needed  work,  whether 
it  be  agreeable  to  you  or  not.  Remember,  dear  brother, 
that  the  path  of  duty  is  not  always  the  path  of  self-choice 
or  of  pleasure.  Think  of  what  I  say,  and  do  as  God  may 
seem  to  bid  you.  I  refrain  from  a  peroration.  But  this 
one  thing  I  will  yet  add,  which  I  omitted  to  say  in  the 
right  place :  you  have  no  prejudices  against  you  of  any 
moment,  for  the  reasons  already  stated,  neither  can  you  be 
accused  of  seeking  '  your  own'  in  coming  before  the  public. 
You  have  no  ambition  to  gratify,  no  personal  animosities 
to  cherish  or  avenge.  To  you  many  will  listen  who  would 
not  listen  to  others,  because  these  have  aroused  prejudices 
against  themselves  by  their  active  participation  in  con- 
troversy, to  which  I  firmly  believe  they  were  7iot  led  by 
unhallowed  motives.  But  my  sheets  are  full,  and  you  are 
weary.     God  direct  you,  bless  you  !   .   .   .   . 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introductory  Remarks         ........         9 

What  does  Mercersburg  Theology  teach  ? 14 

The  Catechism  teaches  differently       ......       20 

The  Doctrine  of  Atonement 21 

Justification  by  Faith 43 

The  Priesthood. — Are  Ministers  Priests  ?    .  .  .  .         •5'^ 

Universal  Priesthood  of  Believers       .         .         .         .         .         •       7' 

The  Opposite  View  in  the  Mercersburg  Theory  .  .         .75 

Confession  and  Absolution  .......       5^3 

Purgatory  ...........       86 

Altar  and  Sacrifice      .........       89 

Altar-Liturgy  inconsistent  with  our  Genius  and  Customs      .  .      105 

The  Sacraments  .         .         ,         .         .         .  .  .  .114 

1.  Baptism 123 

Deliverance  from  the  Power  of  the  Devil        .         .         .124 
Clinical  Baptism  (^Nothtaufe) 127 

2.  The  Lord's  Supper         .         .         .         .         .         .         .129 

APPENDICES. 

A. 

The  First  Ten  Thousand  Dollar  Gift 147 

B, 

What  the  New  Theory  claims  to  hold  .....     149 

Regeneration.     By  Dr.  Hodge  .         ,         .         .         .         -152 

C. 

Justification  and  Sanctification    .         .         .         .         .         .         .154 

D. 

No  Human  Confessors  (Dr.  Ryle)      ......     155 

The  Cross  of  Christ  (Dr.  Luthardt) 156 

(xi) 


xu 


CONTENTS. 


Confirmation  does  not  complete  Baptism  (Dr.  Luthardt) 


PAGB 


The  Office  of  the  Ministiy  (Dr.  Schwartz) 

The  Church  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament  (Neander) 

G. 

How  the  New  Theory  has  led  to  Rome 

H. 

Notes  on  the  Gospel  of  John.     By  Dr.  Scliaff    . 


157 
158 


159 


160 


The  Roman  Catholic  System.     By  Dr.  Dorner 

J. 

Divine  Worship  in  Two  Congregations 

Luther's  Experience  in  Rome    . 

Progress  of  Ritualism 

How  the  Leaven  works 

The  Use  of  the  Liturgy  in  Congregations 

Infant  Baptism  ..... 

Sacerdotal  Absolution 

Going  Backwards       .... 

The  "Defects"  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance 

The  Best  Mode  of  Counteracting  Modern  Infidelity 

Christ  Incarnate  if  Man  had  not  sinned 


166 


173 
173 
175 
176 
177 
180 
180 
182 
184 
186 
188 


pexkghtoit  "%, 


Ji 


MERCERSBURG  THEOLOGY. 


That  the  Reformed  (German)  Church  in  the 
United  States  has  been  greatly  disturbed  for 
twenty  years  past  with  theological  controversy, 
is  well  known,  not  only  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  Church,  but  also  outside  of 
its  communion.  It  is  equally  well  known  that 
the  cause,  as  well  as  the  starting-point,  of  this 
most  unfortunate  controversy,  has  been  the 
promulgation  of  certain  new  philosophical  and 
theological  speculations,  which  were  taught  in 
our  Eastern  literary  and  theological  institutions. 
Beginning  with  one-sided  and  highly-exagger- 
ated attacks  on  "  Modern  Protestantism,"  the 
movement  has  culminated  in  the  adoption  and 
teaching,  by  its  originators  and  their  disciples, 
of  doctrines  and  usages  entirely  at  variance 
with  evangelical  Protestantism  in  general,  and 
the  Reformed  Church  in  particular. 

Into  the  merits  or  demerits  of  these  new 
speculations  it  is  not  the  design  of  these  pages 
to  enter  at  length.     Those  who  wish  to  do  so 

9 


lO  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

will  find  them  defended  with  more  or  less  clear- 
ness in  the  Alercersbttrz  Review  and  the  Re- 
formed  Church  Messenger,  and  opposed  by  Dr. 
Bomberger's  Reformed  Church  Monthly,  the 
Christian  World,  of  Cincinnati,  and,  to  some 
extent  also,  the  Western  Church  paper,  Dcr 
Evangelist  (in  German),  but  especially  Dr. 
Dorner's  able  criticism. 

The  main  design  of  these  pages  is  an  honest 
attempt  to  show :  What  are  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Reformed  Church  according  to 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  the  teachings  of 
standard  writers  from  the  Reformation  down  to 
the  present  time,  in  regard  to  the  points  in  dis- 
pute. Reference  will  also  be  made  to  other 
Churches  of  the  Reformation  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  to  the  gen- 
eral reader  that,  on  all  the  essential  points  under 
consideration,  the  entire  Protestant  Church  at 
that  period  was  in  accord,  substantially,  with  the 
Reformed  Church.  Comparing  these  teachings 
of  the  general  Protestant  Church — but  especially 
those  of  the  Reformed — with  the  new  system 
'which  is  attempting  to  push  aside  and  strangle 
the  old,  it  will  not  be  difficult,  as  the  writer  be- 
lieves, to  see  the  wide  departure  from  the  old, 
evangelical,  sound,  and  outspoken  system  of 
the  Reformed  Church  as  it  was  in  the  beginning, 
and  from  which  we  have  no  reason  to  depart. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  n 

Whilst  it  is  deeply  to  be  deplored  that  so 
much  controversy  has  been  provoked  by  the 
new  system  referred  to,  threatening  sometimes 
to  rend  the  Church,  and  in  many  ways  producing 
disastrous  results  in  our  communion,  yet  it  has 
necessarily  led  to  earnest  inquiry  into  the  origi- 
nal history  and  polity  of  the  Reformed  Church 
on  the  part  of  many  ministers,  who,  except  for 
this  disturbing  element,  would  not  be  "  rooted 
and  grounded"  as  fully  as  they  are  in  the  blessed 
truths  for  which  our  fathers  lived,  and  prayed, 
and  died,  many  of  them  indeed  amid  the  tortures 
of  the  rack,  and  the  agonies  of  the  burning  pile 
kindled  by  Romish  persecution. 

One  portion  of  the  Church  claims  that  the 
new  views  which  for  twenty  years  past  have 
been  taught  in  our  Eastern  College  and  Semi- 
nary are  irreconcilable  with  our  Catechism  and 
with  evangelical  Protestantism,  to  which  they 
profess  to  cling  with  full  purpose  of  heart.  The 
other  portion  admits  that  the  theology  which 
they  hold  rests  in  an  "  entirely  different  style 
of  religious  thought"  from  that  of  their  oppo- 
nents, whom  they  call  the  "anti-liturgical  and 
unchurchly  party."  They  not  only  admit,  but 
affirm,  that  these  two  views  are  "  two  different 
versions  of  the  gospel,"  yea,  ''two  gospels  ar- 
rayed against  each  other,  so  that  the  one  must 
look  upon  the  other  as  wrong  and  false  T 


,2  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

Now,  as  this  Is  admitted  to  be  the  fact  on  both 
sides,  it  is  necessarily  a  Hfe-question  for  the 
Reformed  Church :  Who  is  right,  ajid  who 
wrong?  If  the  new  system  of  thought  as  first 
taught  by  Dr.  Nevin,  and  afterwards  and  now 
taught  by  others  and  held  by  many  of  their 
pupils,  is  according  to  and  consistent  with  evan- 
gelical Protestantism,  and,  as  a  part  of  it,  with 
the  clearly-defined  doctrines  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  then  they  should  be  allowed  all  freedom 
to  promulgate  them,  and  all  clamor  should 
cease.  Nay,  further,  if  some  philosophical  and 
even  theological  speculations  were  held  by  these 
men  which  did  not  in  all  respects  square  with 
individual  views  of  the  other  side,  and  even 
with  those  of  standard  authors  of  former  times, 
but  which  were  not  of  the  nature  of  essentials, 
or  which  did  not  run  counter  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  even  then  there 
should  not  be  felt  any  ground  for  serious  alarm. 
The  Reformed  Church  has  ever  been  regarded, 
even  by  those  outside  of  her  communion,  as  the 
most  liberal  and  generous  branch  of  the  Refor- 
mation. And  undoubtedly  she  has  deserved 
that  character,  and  may  she  ever  deserve  it. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  new  system  of 
thought  affects,  fundamentally  and  essentially, 
the  Reformed  system  of  truth  as  this  was  held 
by  the  Reformers  and  laid  down  in  our  acknowl- 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  j -^ 

edged  standards — if  it  is  true  that  the  new 
system  is  inconsistent  with  that  which  has  always 
been  held  by  evangelical  Protestantism  from 
the  beginning — if  it  is  true  that  they  are  "  differ- 
ent versions  of  the  gospel,  yea,  two  gospels 
arrayed  against  each  other," — then  it  is  high 
time  for  us  all  to  know  it ;  yea,  high  time  that 
every  member  of  the  Reformed  Church  should 
know  it. 

The  writer  of  these  pages  desires  carefully 
and  conscientiously  to  compare  these  two  dif- 
ferent gospels  which  are  "  arrayed  against  each 
other,"  without  partiality  and  guile.  If  he  fails 
in  any  respect  to  do  this  as  perfectly  as  could 
be  desired,  the  readers  may  rest  assured  that 
he  himself  feels,  far  more  than  they  can,  the 
imperfection  of  the  effort,  and  that  he  will  be 
heartily  glad  if  some  abler  pen  shall  perform 
the  work  more  perfectly  and  with  greater  clear- 
ness and  force. 


WHAT  DOES  THE  SO-CALLED  MERCERS- 
BURG  THEOLOGY  TEACH? 


In  answering  this  question,  we  shall  not 
attempt  to  enter  at  any  length  on  the  subject. 
These  pages  are  intended  rather  for  the  people 
than  for  ministers.  Still  it  is  thought  necessary 
to  give  some  general  statements,  taken  from 
the  writings  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  those  who  hold 
his  views,  in  order  to  see  what  the  source  is 
from  which  result  the  changed  sentiments  on 
the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ,  on  Baptism, 
the  Lord's  Supper,  Regeneration,  Faith,  Re- 
pentance, and  correlated  truths.  What,  then, 
does  the  Mercersburg  theology  teach?  What 
are  its  professed  peculiarities  ? 

The  theology  of  Mercersburg  starts,  so  we 
are  told,  with  the  incarnation  as  its  central 
principle.  The  redemption  and  final  salvation 
of  the  world,  according  to  its  teaching,  is  not 
accomplished  by  moral  means  (moral  in  the 
highest  Christian  sense),  but  by  an  organic 
union  of  the  Incarnate  Word  with  humanity,  as 
a  whole,  and  this  in  order  to  form  a  basis  for 
the  regeneration  of  the  i-ace.  It  is  carried  for- 
14 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


15 


ward  "by  an  organic  union  of  the  race  with  the 
Incarnate  Word,"  this  Incarnate  Word  being 
developed  and  transmitted  by  an  organic  or 
historical  process.  Reference  is,  indeed,  made 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  atonement,  justification 
by  grace  through  faith,  and  also  to  repentance. 
But  these  are  secondary,  and  by  the  way,  to  the 
important  Christological  (called  also  the  organic 
"  Christocentric")  scheme.  They  are  not  prop- 
erly of  a  fundamental  character,  only  in  so  far 
as  they  may  be  the  means  of  preparing  the  way 
for  the  effectual  working  of  this  organic  process. 
We  quote  these  words  from  Dr.  Nevin,  which 
he  employs  in  summing  up  a  series  of  articles  : 

"  The  principle  of  Christianity  is  Christ ;  not 
any  attribute,  office,  or  ministry  of  Christ  simply; 
not  any  doctrine,  doing,  or  suffering  of  Christ ; 
but  the  mediatorial  Person  of  Christ,  through 
which  only  room  is  made  for  His  mediation  in 
any  other  view." 

Dr.  Nevin,  and  others  of  his  way  of  thinking, 
charge  those  who  do  not  fall  in  with  their  sys- 
tem that  they  deny  that  redemption  flows  from 
the  mediatorial  person  of  Christ,  and  that  they 
consider  His  work  as  sundered,  apart,  and  dis- 
tinct from  His  person. 

This  charge  is  not  well  founded.  Where,  we 
may  boldly  ask,  is  this  sundering  of  the  work 
from  the  person  of  Christ  taught?     Surely  not 


I  5  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

in  any  of  the  Evangelical  Confessions — not  in 
the  Reformed  Church,  nor  is  it  held  by  any 
minister  of  our  Church,  so  far  as  we  have  ever 
heard. 

But  the  vital  departure  of  the  Mercersburg 
theology  from  the  theology  of  Protestant  and 
Reformed  Churches  Hes  in  the  question,  What 
is  the  nature  of  the  relation  between  Christ  and 
the  redemption  ?  That  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Life,  as  well  as  the  Light,  of  His  people, 
and  consequently  of  the  Church  ;  that  He  is  the 
Alpha  and  Omega,  the  source  and  fountain  of 
all  spiritual  life,  is  a  precious  truth,  and  one 
which  evangelical  theology,  and  with  it  our 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  holds  and  teaches  with 
the  utmost  clearness  and  precision. 

But  the  question  is, — 

How  is  Christ  vitally  related  to  His  people  ? 

We  will  let  Dr.  Nevin  speak  for  himself,  gath- 
ering his  statements  together  in.  as  nearly  a 
connected  form  as  we  can.     He  says, — 

It  is  by  "an  organic  conjunction  with  the 
Saviour,"  "  in  a  way  that  makes  Him  to  be  the 
actual  life-principle  of  their  (believers)  new 
Christian  beincr,  and  shows  their  life  to  he 
mysteriously  involved  in  His  from  its  com- 
mencement to  its  close.  The  regeneration  in 
which  all  starts,  and  the  resurrection  in  which 
all  at  last  becomes  complete,  are  substantially 
one  and  the  same  process ;  which  is  viewed  also, 


AfERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  jy 

at  the  same  time,  as  proceeding-  throughout  from 
the  glorified  hfe  of  the  Saviour  Himself"  "  It 
is  a  new  creation,  which,  as  such,  cannot  start 
from  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it,  but  must 
come  from  the  fundamental  regfeneration  of 
humanity  that  is  brought  to  pass,  first  of  all,  in 
the  Word  made  flesh."  "The  mystery  of  the 
incarnation  exhibited  in  the  living  Christ  is  the 
fundamental  principle  and  beginning  of  the 
whole  Christian  salvation."  "  The  Word  Incar- 
nate is  the  root  and  origin  of  the  entire  new 
creation,  no  less  fully  than  He  is  to  be  consid- 
ered as  being,  before  He  became  man,  the  pro- 
ducino;  cause  of  the  old  creation."  "  The  organic 
view  of  Christianity  underlies  the  true  idea  of 
the  Church."  "  In  this  view,  of  course,  Christ 
becomes  at  once  for  faith  the  root  of  all  Chris- 
tianity and  the  fountain  of  the  universal  Chris- 
tian life  out  to  the  resurrection  of  the  last  day. 
He  is  THE  SECOND  Adam.  That,  of  itself,  gives 
us  the  whole  thought,  and  causes  us  to  feel  the 
vital  character  of  the  relation  that  holds  between 
Him  and  His  people."  "The  process  starts  in 
the  mystery  of  our  Saviour's  holy  incarnation." 
"  Christianity  (therefore)  is  a  new  world  of 
grace,  a  new  order  of  life,  which  is  compre- 
hended primarily  in  the  (incarnate)  person  of 
Christ,  and  which  starts  forth  from  Him  as  its 
original  principle  and  root." 

Now,  what  does  Dr.  Nevin  mean  by  these 
declarations  ?  And  before  we  give  their  natural 
and  obvious  meaning,  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  he  does  not  prctci:d  to  hold  the  Reformed 


I  8  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

view  on  this  subject, — as  we  shall  see  hereafter, 
— for  he  says,  openly  and  frankly,  he  "  cannot 
endure"  it.     What  then  is  his  peculiar  theory  ? 

Why,  most  clearly  this,  that  men  are  not  saved 
through  the  sufferinors  and  death  of  Christ,  the 
Crucified  One,  but  by  the  actual,  literal,  sub- 
stantial conveyance  to  believers  of  the  very  sub- 
stance of  the  life  of  Christ  incarnate.  Christ  in 
His  theanthropic  (divine  human)  person  is  as  lit- 
erally and  substantially  the  ground,  the  fountain- 
head  of  the  new  life  of  believers,  as  the  natural 
Adam  is  of  their  natural  life.  The  personal 
regeneration  of  believers  starts  in  and  flows  from 
the  general  regeneration  of  humanity,  in  and  by 
the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  Word. 

Denying  then  that  the  redemption  of  men  is 
accomplished  or  the  work  of  the  atonement 
secured  through  Christ's  holy  life  and  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  on  the  cross  {i.e.,  through  His  active 
and  passive  vicarious  satisfaction),  this  new 
theory  holds  that  we  are  saved  by  the  convey- 
ance to  us  of  this  regenerated  humanity  in  the 
incarnate  Word,  through  certain  outward  chan- 
nels (the  visible  Church,  Ordination,  Baptism, 
Confirmation,  etc.).  The  least  candor  must 
admit  that  this  is  a  very  mechanical  and  outward 
theory  ;  that  it  is  very  different  from  that  which 
has  always  been  held  as  true  in  the  Reformed 
Church,  and  from  what  the  Scriptures  seem  to 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  jq 

teach  so  very  plainly,  and  that  it  does  by  no 
means  correspond  with  the  experience  of  God's 
people  in  all  ages. 

It  is  not  necessary,  nor  is  it  our  purpose,  to 
pursiTe  our  inquiries  on  the  main  point  any 
further  in  regard  to  the  new  theory,  that  the 
incarnation  and  not  the  death  of  Christ  is  held 
to  be  the  fountain  of  salvation  as  well  as  the 
fountain  of  all  the  peculiar  teachings  of  that 
school.  This  follows  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence. If  the  incarnation  of  Christ  is  the 
central  doctrine  of  the  system,  it  must  follow 
also,  as  Dr.  Ruetenik  has  well  observed,  that 
if  the  unprofitable  question  were  to  be  asked, 
whether  Christ  would  have  become  man  if  Adam 
had  not  sinned,  the  answer  from  Nevin  and  his 
disciples  would  be.  Yes.  And  why  ?  Because 
Christ's  sacrificial  death  was  not  the  aim  of  His 
incarnation ;  it  was  merely  an  event — a  neces- 
sary event — in  the  process  of  His  life.  But  the 
Scriptures  everywhere  imply  that  the  incarna- 
tion was  merely  a  means — a  necessary  step  to 
the  atonement,  just  as  a  seed,  in  order  to  grow 
and  ripen,  must  be  placed  into  the  ground. 

Now  let  the  reader  turn  to  the  i6th  question 
of  our  Catechism,  where  it  is  asked  why  it  was 
necessary  for  Christ  to  be  very  man,  and  also 
perfectly  righteous.  The  answer  is  given  in 
these  words : 


20  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

"  Because  the  justice  of  God  requires  that  the 
same  human  nature,  which  hath  sinned,  should 
Hkewise  make  satisfaction  for  sin  ;  and  one  who 
is  himself  a  sinner  cannot  satisfy  for  others." 
(See  also  the  proof-texts  quoted  under  the 
answer.) 

Here  then  we  have  our  Catechism  teaching 
most  explicidy,  with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that 
the  incarnation  was  necessary,  because  Christ 
could  not  otherwise  have  suffered  death  for  the 
human  race.  The  same  Catechism  teaches  that 
He  "  bore  in  body  and  soul  the  wrath  of  God 
against  the  sins  of  all  mankind  ;  that  so  by  His 
passion^  as  the  only  propitiatory  sacrifice.  He 
might  redeem  our  body  and  soul  from  ever- 
lasting damnation."  (Quest.  '^'].)  It  makes  the 
solemn,  clear,  and  unequivocal  declaration,  that 
the  "  Holy  Ghost  teaches  us  in  the  gospel,  and 
assures  us  by  the  sacraments,  that  the  ivhole  of 
our  salvation  depends  tip07i  that  one  sacrifice  of 
Christ,  which  He  offered  for  tis  on  the  cross." 
(Quest.  Gj.)  And  in  that  notable  8oth  question 
(which  not  a  few  have  desired  to  be  expunged 
because  it  is  an  honest  and  decided  protest 
against  the  Romish  mass)  we  are  told  that 
"  the  Lord's  Supper  testifies  to  us  that  we  have 
a  full  pardon  of  all  sin  b)'  the  only  sacrifice  of 
Jesus  Christ,  which  He  has  once  accomplished 
on  the  cross." 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  2 1 

In  all  candor  it  may  be  asked  just  here,  Can 
any  truth  be  stated  with  greater  clearness  and 
precision  ?  And  it  may  be  asked  further,  Is  not 
this  the  Protestant  doctrine  to  which  millions 
of  the  departed  dead  and  the  living  have  clung 
and  are  clinging  as  their  greatest  comfort  in  life 
and  death  ?  Is  it  not  this  truth  which  is  put  into 
the  mouth  of  the  believer  in  that  precious  first 
answer  of  the  Catechism  where  he  is  asked 
What  is  thy  only  comfort  in  life  and  death  ?  and 
responds  in  these  words  :  "  That  I  with  body 
and  soul,  both  in  life  and  death,  am  not  my 
own,  but  belong  unto  my  faithful  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  zvho  with  His  precious  blood  hath  fully 
satisfied  for  all  my  sins,  and  delivered  me  from 
all  the  power  of  the  devil,"  etc. 

It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  this  cardinal 
truth  in  the  gospel  system,  as  taught  in  our 
confession  of  faith,  rests  on  the  obvious  teach- 
ing of  the  word  of  God,  of  which  such  a  pas- 
sage as  I  Peter  i.  18,  19  gives  the  key-note: 
"  Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  re- 
deemed with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and 
gold,  .  .  .  but  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  with- 
out spot."  But  this  is  not  what  we  are  called 
upon  to  do ;  for,  as  ministers  and  members 
of  the  Reformed  Church,  our  acknowledged 
standard  of  truth  is  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 


2  2  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

As  ministers,  we  have  subscribed  to  it  and 
solemnly  vowed  to  preach  that  truth  ;  as  pro- 
fessors, to  teach  it ;  as  members,  to,  believe  it. 
All  that  is  needed  then  just  now,  all  that  is  con- 
templated in  this  little  work,  is  to  prove  that  the 
new  system  of  Mercersburg-Lancaster  is  not  in 
accordance  witli  the  system  of  truth  as  held  by 
the  Reformed  Church,  and  as  it  is  clearly  laid 
down  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  as  held 
and  taught  by  the  Reformers  and  all  acknowl- 
edged expounders  and  theological  teachers  of 
the  Church. 

W^e  have  seen  what  is  the  unmistakable 
teachine  of  the  Catechism,  Now  let  us  see 
whether  the  obvious  sense  of  its  teaching  is 
borne  out  by  other  testimony  of  undoubted 
force  and  authority. 

And  first,  we  will  appeal  to  Ursinus,  one  of 
the  authors  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  He 
wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Catechism,  which 
was  translated  into  English  some  )ears  ago  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Williard,  President  of  Heidelberg 
College,  in  Tiffin,  Ohio.  No  authority  can  be 
equal  to  that  of  the  learned  and  good  author  of 
that  book  when  the  question  concerns  the  sense 
and  meaninp  in  which  that  inimitable  text-book 
is  to  be  understood.  In  the  introduction  to  the 
English  translation  referred  to.  Dr.  Nevin  says, 
"  No  other  [work]  can  have  the  same  weight  as 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  23 

an  exposition  of  its  true  meaning."  Let  us 
then  hear  how  he  understood  the  Catechism. 

In  his  explanation  of  the  first  answer  in  the 
Catechism,  in  treating  of  the  "  comfort"  of  a 
believer  in  Christ,  Ursinus  says  that  this  com- 
fort consists,  first,  of  "  our  reconciliation  with 
God  throuofh  Christ;"  and  then,  as  to  the  manner 
of  it,  he  says  that  "our  reconciliation  (is)  with 
God  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  that  is,  through 
His  passion,  death,  and  satisfaction  for  our  sins." 
I  Peter  i.  18  ;   i  John  i.  7.    [Comment.,  p.  18.) 

In  explaining  the  phrase  "  to  eat  the  crucified 
body  and  to  drink  the  shed  blood  of  Christ," 
which  occurs  in  the  76th  question,  he  says, — 

"  The  eating  of  the  body  and  the  drinking  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  is  not  corporal,  but  spiritual, 
and  embraces : 

"  I .  Faith  in  His  sufferings  and  death. 

"  2.  The  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of 
eternal  life  throuo-h  faith. 

"3.  Our  union  with  Christ  through  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  dwells  both  in  Christ  and  in  us. 

"*4.  The  quickening  influence  of  the  same 
Spirit.  Hence,  to  eat  the  crucified  body  and  to 
drink  the  shed  blood  of  Christ,  is  to  believe 
that  God  receives  us  into  His  favor  for  the  sake 
of  Christ's  merits  ;  that  we  obtain  the  remission 
of  our  sins  and  reconciliation  with  God  by  the 
same  faith."    (p.  382.) 

This  is  the  Protestant,  this  is  the  Reformed 


24 


MER CERSB UR G    THEOL OGY. 


teaching-  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
fallen  men  are  saved,  not  by  an  "  organic  pro- 
cess" which  starts  in  "  the  mystery"  of  Christ's 
incarnation,  by  which  humanity,  in  some  way 
not  clearly  stated,  becomes  regenerated,  and 
which  is  said  to  be  "  the  fundamental  principle 
and  beginning  of  the  whole  Christian  salvation," 
or,  as  it  is  sometimes  stated,  by  the  actual, 
literal,  substantial  conveyance  "of  the  very  sub- 
stance of  the  life  of  Christ  Incarnate."  No  ;  the 
Catechism,  and  indeed  the  entire  evangelical 
Protestant  Church,  knows  nothlno-  of  the  Chris- 
tian  salvation  brought  about  by  any  process  so 
physical  as  this  new  theory  seems  to  teach.  It 
is  to  the  redemption  of  Christ  accomplished  on 
the  CROSS,  and  secured  to  the  penitent  believer 
by  faith,  not  to  the  Incarnation  process,  that  we 
are  directed  for  salvation. 

This  Is  the  doctrine  which  was  taught  by  all 
the  Reformers  and  by  all  accepted  writers  and 
preachers  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  Europe 
and  America, — Zwingle  and  Calvin,  and  ^the 
whole  line  of  godly  men  who  adorn  the  page 
of  Church  history.  The  former  says,  "  Tnere 
Is,  therefore,  but  one  way  to  become  reconciled 
to  God,  and  that  way  is  through  Jesus  and  Him 
crucified.  It  is  by  preaching  Christ  on  the  cross 
that  men  are  drawn  to  God,  thus  fulfilling  the 
word  of  Jesus :     And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


25 


draw  all  men  after  me."  Calvin  says,  "The 
sinner,  coming  in  contrition  to  the  Saviour,  finds 
in  Him  and  in  His  finished  work  of  redemption 
on  the  cross  just  what  he  needs,  and  this  is 
what  affords  him  hope  and  comfort," 

And,  coming  to  the  present  age,  we  hear  the 
same  harmonious  testimony  from  the  lips  of 
God's  honored  servants.  It  is  needless  to 
multiply  quotations.  But  let  us  hear  the  testi- 
mony of  a  man  whose  name  is  loved  and 
honored  in  America  as  it  is  in  Europe,  and  who 
cannot  be  accused  of  being  unsound  to  the 
confession  of  the  Reformed  Church.  I  mean 
Dr.  F.  W.  Krummacher.  It  is  from  his  address 
of  welcome  to  the  members  of  the  Evangelical 
Alliance  in  Berlin  in  1857.  The  whole  eloquent 
and  spirited  address  is  a  noble  testimony  of  his 
oneness  with  true  Christians  who  hold  to  Christ 
the  Head  as  the  "All  and  in  All."  After  saying, 
as  if  in  the  name  of  all  those  who  were  then  before 
him,  that  they  bowed  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
the  Divine  infallible  revelation  given  from  God, 
and  that  no  other  can  be  believed  in,  whether 
it  be  called  reason  or  tradition,  hierarchy  or 
church,  or  by  whatever  other  name  it  may  be 
known,  nor  that  any  can  stand  above  it,  and 
affirming  the  declaration  of  faith  in  the  triune 
God,  the  lost  and  sinful  state  of  man,  etc.,  he 
proceeds  to  say, — 


26  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

"  But  we  also  comfort  ourselves  with  the  joy- 
ful assurance  that  this  great  grace  has  appeared 
in  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh ;  and  in  His  mediatorial  work  we  see  the 
only  but  the  all-sufficient  cause  of  our  salvation 
and  of  our  everlasting  happiness.  JVc  take  hold 
of  Christ  by  faith;  we  do  Him  honor;  with 
body  and  soul  we  give  ourselves  to  Him  ;  and 
thus  we  conclude,  that  though  we  are  sinful, 
miserable,  and  guilty  in  ourselves,  we  stand 
justified  before  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  the 
dead,  not  on  account  of  our  faith  as  a  virtue, 
much  less  on  account  of  our  good  works,  but 
solely  for  the  righteousness  of  the  Great  Surety, 
which  is  reckoned  as  grace  to  those  who  Jiave 
faith  in  Him  who  justifies  the  uuQ^odly.  On 
account  of  the  merits  of  Jesus,  the  Holy  Ghost 
declares  us  in  our  conscience  free  from  sin,  gives 
witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children 
of  God,  fills  us  with  that  peace  which  passeth 
all  understanding,  and  continues  in  us  that  work 
of  sanctification  which  He  has  already  begun 
in  us." 

The  same  Krummacher  holds  the  following 
language  in  a  sermon  on  the  "  Cross  of  Christ :" 

''Christ  the  Mediator!  Touched  with  erati- 
tude,  I  give  Him,  the  Crucified  One,  my  full  con- 
fidence ;  and  after  having  taken  my  place  as  the 
Mediator,  He  now  becomes  also  my  Redeemer 
and  Saviour.  For  His  sake  I  have  been  absolved 
from  all  the  guilt  of  sin.  Now  He  also  breaks 
the  dominion  of  sin  in  me,  by  giving  me  His  Holy 
Spirit,  making  me  a  partaker  of  His  nature,  and 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


27 


thus  brings  about  a  new  mode  of  life  well  pleas- 
ing to  God.  I  now  do  not  live  any  more  unto 
myself,  but  unto  Him,  who  has  pU7'chased  me 
zvith  His  blood!'  .  .  .  "The  cross,  with  its 
sweet  tones  of  invitation,  and  at  the  same  time 
its  solemn  admonitions  to  repentance — yes,  the 
cross,  with  the  suffering,  dying  Lamb  of  God 
upon  it — the  cross  is  the  ce^itre  of  the  gospel!' 

This  clear  testimony  from  the  able  court- 
preacher  of  Prussia  and  the  loved  favorite  of 
the  late  king,  now  with  God,  is  essentially 
different  from  the  theory  which  makes  the  in- 
caniatioii  the  "  centre  of  Christianity."  Krum- 
macher,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  was  soundly  Re- 
formed, Evangelical,  and  Protestant.  Whoever 
was  Rationalist,  certainly  he  was  not.  And  the 
utterances  in  the  opening  address,  above  re- 
ferred to,  were  heard  by  hundreds  of  the 
choicest  spirits  from  all  parts  of  the  Christian 
Church  with  unanimous  accord, — the  leading 
men  of  the  Evangelical  Church  of  Germany, 
England,  France,  Switzerland,  Scotland,  and 
elsewhere, — as  with  one  voice  they  proclaimed 
their  faith  in  Christ  crucified,  as  the  Lamb  of 
God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world. 
And  need  it  be  said  that  the  same  truth  has 
been  held  in  the  same  way  by  all  sound  Pro- 
testants, not  only  in  Europe,  but  also  in  this 
country,  and  by  none  more  emphatically  than 
by  the  ministry  of  the  Reformed  Church,  among 


28  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

the  dead  and  die  livinor  ?  Amonor  the  former  we 
recall  such  men  as  Schlatter  and  the  two  Drs. 
Hendel,  Otterbein,  and  Fries;  Dr.  S.  Helfen- 
stein,  Jon.  Helfenstein,  and  Reiley,  Runkel,  Dr. 
Becker,  and  D.  Wagner;  Drs.  Mayer  and 
Bibighaus  ;  Drs.  Pomp  and  Hoffeditz ;  P.  Pauli 
and  Vandersloot,  Sr. ;  Thomas  Winters,  Sr.,  and 
Glonineer ;  Drs.  A.  Helfenstein  and  Zacharias  ; 
W.  Hiester  and  the  Rahausers ;  the  earnest 
Beecher  and  the  devoted  Rice ;  Smaltz  and 
Leinbach ;  Gutelius  and  the  two  Fishers ;  I. 
Gerhart  and  the  lovely  Cares ;  Dr.  Heiner, 
H^  Wagner,  and  Dr.  Rauch*  (the  first  Presi- 
dent of  Marshall  College),  Dr.  Hoffmeier,  and 
by  scores  of  others. 

BUT   WHO    DENIES    THIS    DOCTRINE? 

It  may  perhaps  be  said  that  no  one  denies 
this  truth,  and  hence  the  proofs  furnished  are 
a  fruitless  and  unnecessary  labor.  Let  us  see 
how  this  is.  Instead  of  selecting  paragraphs 
and  single  sentences  from  numerous  articles  by 

*  Out  of  a  number  of  quotations  from  Dr.  Ranch's  sermons,  let  the 
following  serve  as  a  specimen  on  this  subject :  "  Had  Christ  not  been 
crucified,  the  kingdom  of  truth  and  of  love  would  never  have  been 
established  on  earth.  He  died,  not  because  He  coidd  not  shun  the 
malice  of  the  Jews,  but  that  He  might  recoiicile  the  world  to  God ;  and 
the  Father  makes  use  of  their  arm  to  slay  Him  whose  pure  and  inno- 
cent blood  was  to  be  the  ransom  for  our  sins.  Now  the  sinner  is 
justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law." — The  Inner  Life, 
edited  by  Dr.  E.  V.  Gerhart,  1S56,  p.  152. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  09 

various  writers  in  the  Mcrcci^sburg  Rcviezv,  and 
the  Messenger,  in  which  the  opposite  truth  is 
taught,  we  have  an  article  on  this  very  subject 
in  the  Messenge7'  of  September  17,  1873,  from 
one  of  the  professors  in  Lancaster,  which  is 
clear  and  outspoken ;  it  could  not  be  more  so. 
The  title  of  the  article  is,  "  The  Doctrine  of  the 
Catechism  concerning-  the  Atoning  Death  of 
Christ." 

The  writer  sees  and  feels  the  force  of  the 
language  employed  in  the  Catechism  touching 
this  subject.  He  admits,  in  fact,  that  it  requires 
one  to  understand  its  words  in  a  sense  which 
he  does  not  wish  them  to  have.  Here  is  the 
introductory  paragraph : 

"A  superficial  study  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism may  make  the  impression  that  the  atoning 
sacrifice  of  Christ  accomplished  on  the  cross  is 
not  only  essential,  but  also  fundamental  and 
principial,  in  its  doctrinal  system  of  redemption. 
It  teaches,  that  Christ  '  bore  in  body  and  soul 
the  wrath  of  God  ajjainst  the  sin  of  the  whole 
human  race,  in  order  that  by  His  passion,  as 
the  only  atoning  sacrifice.  He  might  redeem 
our  body  and  soul  from  everlasting  damnation' 
(Q.  2)1^  ;  that  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  on 
the  cross  is  the  only  ground  of  our  salvation, 
and  that  '  our  whole  salvation  stands  in  the  one 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  made  for  us  on  the  cross' 
(Q.  67).  Again,  the  Catechism  says  'that  we 
have  full  forgiveness  of  all  our  sins  by  the  one 


30  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ'  (O.  80).     Many  other 
expressions  occur,  which  are  equally  explicit." 

But  why  now  is  it  said  that  the  ''superficial 
study  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism"  makes  such 
an  impression  ?  Have  all  the  theologians,  and 
all  the  millions  of  pious  people,  learned  and 
unlearned,  for  hundreds  of  years  past,  been 
nothing  but  "superficial  readers"  ?  What  other 
"impression"  upon  the  minds  of  the  devout 
readers  sf  that  Catechism  could  by  any  possi- 
bility be  made,  than  "  that  the  atoning  sacrifice 
of  Christ  accomplished  on  the  cross"  is  essential 
and  fundamental  ?  That  any  Protestant  teacher 
of  theology,  and  especially  one  in  the  Reformed 
Church,  should  ever  have  received  any  other 
impression,  is  most  marvellous. 

But  let  us  hear  him  further : 


That  this   doctrinal    system    underlies  and 
nates 
believe." 


animates  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  we  cannot 


"  We  cannot  beheve"  !  He  cannot  believe  it, 
although  the  entire  Protestant  Church — yea,  we 
might  say,  even  the  Roman  Catholic  Church — 
at  least  in  a  formal  way — has  always  held  to  the 
truth,  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  unmistak- 
ably -teaches  it,  so  that  even  the  professor  admits 
that  the  obvious  language  of  this  book  makes 
the  impression  upon  the  reader  to  that  effect. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  31 

And  why  can  he  not  beheve  it,  then  ?     Here 
are  his  reasons : 

"  The  notion  is  incompatible  with  the  central 
position  of  the  Creed ;  incompatible  also  with 
its  conception  of  the  gospel,  as  an  order  of 
grace  standing  in  the  personal  history  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

Here  we  have  the  frank  avowal  that  the 
"  notion"  (only  a  notion)  of  the  atoning  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  as  previously  stated,  "  is  incompatible 
with  the  central  position  of  the  (so-called)  Apos- 
tles' Creed;"  and,  further,  "incompatible  also 
with  its  conception  of  the  gospel,  as  an  order 
of  grace  standing  in  the  personal  history  of 
Jesus  Christ." 

This  is  not  a  very  clear  statement,  to  be  sure. 
But  any  one  who  has  carefully  read  the  new 
(Mercersburg)  theology  sees  at  a  glance  what 
it  means.  It  means  that  men  are  not  saved  by 
the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ,  but  by  partici- 
pating in  the  divine-human  life  of  Christ.  In 
other  words,  we  are  saved  by  the  "actual,  lit- 
eral, substantial  conveyance  to  us"  of  thj  very 
substance  of  the  life  of  Christ  incarnate,  and 
that  redemption,  as  applied  and  effected,  does 
not  flow  from  "  Christ  and  Him  crucified"  (for 
this  is  said  to  be  only  a  mode,  means,  or  condi- 
tion of  the  process),  but  from  the  incarnation. 
To  the  Creed  is  given  a  peculiar  meaning — a 


32 


MER  CERSB  UR  G    THEOL  OGY. 


purely  fanciful,  subjective  theory,  and,  with  this 
construction  put  upon  it  by  the  new  theology, 
it  is  made  to  give  the  key-note  to  all  that  is  em- 
braced under  the  name  of  Christianity.  Virtu- 
ally, it  is  placing  the  Creed  above  the  written 
gospel.  Now  then  we  see  plainly  enough  that 
the  reason  why  the  Lancaster  professor  cannot 
believe  in  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  the  "notion" 
of  the  Catechism  (and  the  word  of  God  as 
well),  is  because  it  will  not  fit  in  with  the  new 
philosophical  and  theological  system  to  which 
he  holds.  Nay,  it  is  antagonistic  to  it  from 
every  point  of  view.  It  is  altogether  "  another 
gospel,"  starting  in  and  "  flowing  from  the  gen- 
eral regeneration  of  humanity  in  and  by  the 
incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  Word." 
ihis  is  called  a  process,  an  "historical  process." 
By  means  of  it  we  are  saved,  according  to  this 
new  theory,  not  by  Christ's  passion  and  death, 
appropriated  by  faith,  but  by  participating  in 
the  theanthropic  or  divine-human  nature  of 
Christ,  a  view  which  the  learned  Dr.  Dorner 
calls  "  a  manufactured  theory  which  cannot  sup- 
port itself  by  the  Holy  Scriptures. "••' 

The  method  which  the  writer  referred  to  em- 
ploys to  sustain  his  position  that  the  Catechism 
cannot  and  does  not  teach  what  it  seems  to  do, 

*  iJr.   Dorner's  "  Liturgical  Conflict  in  the  Reformed  Church  of 
America,"  l868. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


ZZ 


is  a  very  lame  and  far-fetched  one.  He  says 
the  emphasis  which  it  lays  on  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  was  intended  rather  as  an  opposition  to 
the  "contrary  errors  of  the  Roman  Church. 
The  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  opposed  to  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  mass ;  and  the  infinite  merit  of  His 
sacrifice  to  the  supposed  merit  obtained  by 
monastic  vows,  arbitrary  penance,  and  self-in- 
flicted bodily  pains." 

To  this  unheard-of,  pointless,  and  unnatural 
assertion,  which  contains  the  very  embodiment 
of  its  own  weakness,  let  it  be  remarked : 

1.  That  the  Catechism  does  not  furnish  the 
most  remote  foundation  for  such  an  assertion  in 
the  passages  referred  to,  except  in  the  Both 
Question,  which  was  intended  to  be  a  testimony 
against  the  Romish  mass,  not  by  "  implication," 
but  directly,  positively.  But  so  far  as  the  37th 
and  67th  Questions  are  concerned,  it  is  utterly 
futile  to  draw  from  them  any  other  sense  or 
meaning  than  what  the  clear,  obvious  words 
teach.  There  they  stand,  and  no  turning  and 
twisting  can  make  anything  else  out  of  them. 

2.  The  other  remark  is,  that  if  the  meanino- 
of  the  Catechism  is  different,  by  implication,  at 
least,  from  what  it  seems  to  be,  is  it  not  strange 
that  that  meaning  was  never  discovered  before  ? 
For  more  than  three  hundred  years  has  that 
precious  little  work  been  regarded  as  containing 


34  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

one  of  the  clearest  expositions  of  divine  truth, 
outside  of  the  Bible,  the  Church  has  ever  pos- 
sessed. Its  compact  yet  full  teachings  on  the 
doctrine  of  redemption,  the  atonement  by 
Christ,  and  its  application  to  the  believer,  have 
been  held  and  believed,  have  ever  been  preached 
and  expounded,  in  accordance  with  the  obvious, 
plain  meaning  of  its  language.  Hundreds  of 
commentaries  have  been  written  on  the  Cate- 
chism in  Germany,  Holland,  and  America,  and 
not  one  of  the  writers  ever  discovered  that  the 
Catechism  did  not  mean  just  precisely  what  it 
taught.  What  no  one  of  them  was  learned 
enough  to  find  out,  has  been,  however,  discov- 
ered at  this  late  day,  as  it  would  seem !  The 
entire  Protestant  Church  has  so  understood  it, 
has  indorsed  it,  and  the  Reformed  Church  has 
gloried  in  it.  No  Reformed  minister  or  theo- 
logian, of  any  standing  or  character,  ever  held 
the  view  that  the  Catechism  taught  anything 
else  than  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the 
cross  "  was  essential,  fundamental,  and  principial 
in  its  doctrinal  system  of  redemption."  Was 
there  ever  a  breath  to  the  contrar}^  uttered  in 
our  Church,  even  twenty  or  twenty-five  years 
ago  ?  Did  not  Dr.  Nevin  himself  write  a  little 
book  in  commendation  of  the  Catechism  ?  and 
did  not  the  Reformed  Church  in  Germany  and 
in    this   country  unite  in   celebrating  the  three 


MER  CERSB  UR G    THEOL  O G  V. 


35 


hundredth  anniversary  of  the  Catechism,  without 
ever  intimating,  in  any  of  the  addresses,  essays, 
and  speeches,  that  the  teachings  of  that  book 
were  not  properly  apprehended,  or  that  what 
seemed  to  teach  this  cardinal  truth  was  a  mere 
antithesis  against  some  of  the  errors  of  the 
Roman  Church?     Never!     No,  never/ 

But  let  us  hear  again  what  the  author  of  the 
article  in  the  Messenger  says,  for  the  purpose 
of  turning  the  point  against  those  who  believe 
differently  from  himself: 

"  When  the  Catechism  emphasizes  the  ex- 
clusive efficacy  of  Christ's  death,"  he  says,  "the 
implied  opposition  does  not  pertain  to  any  other 
cardinal  fact  in  His  history.  His  death  is  not 
opposed  to  His  birth  on  the  one  side,  or  His 
resurrection  on  the  other.  It  does  not  inculcate 
the  idea  that  the  only  ground  of  salvation  is 
the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  His  conception 
and  birth,  not  His  resurrection  and  glorification ; 
as  if  the  life  were  not  as  necessary  as  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  His  exaltation  and  glory  as 
necessary  as  His  humiliation." 

Let  us  ask  the  writer  of  the  foregoing  two 
sentences  whether  he  can  point  out  any  one  in 
the  Reformed  Church  who  ever  tauQ;ht  or  held 
that  the  Catechism  implied'any  opposition  to  His 
birth  or  resurrection,  or  any  other  cardinal  fact 
in  Christ's  history.  Opposition  !  There  is  no 
opposition  in  the  case.     Who,  it  may  be  asked, 


36 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


ever  said  that  Christ's  death  was  opposed  to 
His  birth,  on  the  one  side,  or  His  resurrec- 
tion, on  the  other?  It  might  be  interesting 
to  know. 

But  when  the  writer  says  that  the  Catechism 
"  does  not  inculcate  the  idea  that  the  only 
ground  of  salvation  is  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ,  not  His  conception  and  birth,  etc.,"  we 
must  ask  him  what  right  he  has  to  presuppose 
any  opposition  to  the  conception  and  birth, 
resurrection  and  glorification  of  Christ.  The 
Catechism  in  the  Question  referred  to  {2)l) 
treats  of  the  "only  ground  of  our  salvation." 
It  says  that  the  "  Holy  Ghost  teaches  us  in  the 
gospel,  and  assures  us  by  the  sacraments,  that 
the  whole  of  our  salvation  depends  upon  that 
one  sacrifice  of  Christ,  which  He  offered  for  us 
on  the  cross."  Here  the  Catechism  does  indeed 
say  what  the  professor  denies,  that  the  only 
ground  of  our  salvation  depends  on  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  but  it  does  not  imply  that  the  birth 
and  resurrection  were  not  essential,  antece- 
dent, and  consequent  facts  to  the  vicarious 
death  of  Christ.  St.  Paul  says,  "God  forbid 
that  I  should  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  our 
Lord  fesus  Christ''  (Gal.  vi.  14).  St.  John 
says,  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  His  Son 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin"  (i  John  i.  8).  Do 
these   and    other   like    declarations    of    God's 


MER  CERSB  URG    THRO  LOG  V. 


37 


holy  word  imply  any  opposition,  or  even  a 
sHehtinor  of  the  birth  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  ?  Just  as  much,  and  no  more,  than 
does  the  Catechism.'-' 

It  is  then  not  in  the  atonement  as  something- 
separate  and  apart  from  Christ's  person  and 
work  in  any  form,  but  in  Christ  as  born,  risen, 
crucified,  and  glorified,  that  we,  with  the  uni- 
versal church  of  Christ,  believe.  But  we  do 
believe  also,  with  the  same  universal  church  of 
Christ,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross 
as  the  culmination,  the  crowning  fact  of  all  that 
went  before,  "  is  the  only  ground  of  our  salva- 
tion," and  "  that  our  whole  salvation  stands  in 
the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ." 

It  might  seem  superfluous,  in  a  case  so  plain 
and  self-evident,  to  bring  forward  any  more 
proof.  But  let  us  direct  attention  to  one  more. 
It  is  in  the  formula  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as 

*  To  give  prominence  to  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross  has  ever 
been  the  glory  of  evangelical  Protestantism,  and  the  want  of  it  has 
always  been  regarded  as  the  forerunner,  if  not  the  actual  present  ex- 
istence, of  Rationalism.  How  strangely  does  it  sound,  therefore,  to 
have  it  said  in  the  editorial  columns  of  our  Church  paper  (Oct.  i,  1873) 
that  "  one  of  the  great  prevailing  wrong  tendencies  of  the  day,  when 
speaking  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  as  related  to  the  grand  scheme 
of  redemption,  is  the  disposition  to  give  such  prominence  to  the  death 
of  Christ  on  the  cross,"  and  then  charging  that  by  so  doing  it  "  casts 
into  the  shade,  if  it  does  not  exclude,  everything  else  relating  to  His 
person  and  work"  !  The  eminent  Dr.  Luthardt  says,  "  The  central 
point  of  the  revelation  of  redemption  is  the  atonement  on  the  cross, 
the  forgiveness  of  sins." — Lecture  IX.  of  his  works. 
4 


38 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


contained  in  the  Palatinate  Directory  (Heidel- 
berg, A.D.  1563,  only  three  years  after  the 
publication  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism),  where 
it  is  said, — 

"  From  this  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  we  see 
that  He  directs  our  faith  and  confidence  to  His 
perfect  sacrifice, — once  offered  on  the  cross, — 
as  to  the  only  ground  and  foundation  of  oiw  sal- 
vation, in  which  He  became  to  our  hungry  and 
thirsty  souls  the  true  meat  and  drink  of  ever- 
lasting life." 

Yea,  verily,  the  professor  is  right  in  saying 
that  the  Catechism  "  emphasizes"  this  doctrine, 
and  so  have  all  sound  theologians  from  Ursinus 
down  to  Krummacher  and  Dorner.  The  pro- 
fessor, however,  and  with  him  the  leaders  of  the 
new  system  of  Mercersburg  and  Lancaster,  do 
not  emphasize,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  do  not, 
yea,  they  ''cannot  believe  it."  And  the  reason 
why  they  cannot  believe  it  has  been  stated: 
namely,  their  new  theory  of  philosophy  and 
theology  has  no  room  for  it.  It  starts  out  from 
another  principle  altogether.  In  that  theory  a 
fusion  of  the  theanthropic  or  divine-human  life 
of  the  Word  with  humanity  is  the  central  doc- 
trine, and  this  rules  the  whole  system  of  their 
theology ;  and  in  their  view  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  on  the  cross,  as  it  has 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  39 

always  been  held  by  the  evangelical  Church.* 
Just  here  It  is  that  the  new  system  is  unsound 
to  the  core,  anti-Protestant,  and  so  anti-Re- 
formed. Its  friends  may  endeavor  as  much  as 
they  please  to  make  it  appear  that  the  opposing 
view  is  held  only  by  "Piirita7is,  fanatics,"  or, 
mayhap,  by  a  fraction  of  "  Rationalistic"  theo- 
logians who  know  no  better.  This  way  of 
throwing  mire  on  a  hated  few  looks  very  like 
a  ruse.  It  is  not  a  small  fraction,  it  is  7iot  some 
one-sided  Puritans  and  fanatics,  nor  some 
modern  "  unchurchly  sects,'' — Winebrenners  or 
Mormons  it  might  be, — that  are  meant,  merely, 
although  when  pressed  on  this  subject  they  will 
sometimes  point  to  these  as  being  their  "  objec- 
tive point"  of  attack.  But  they  mean  some- 
thing "  broader  and  deeper"  than  that.  Dr. 
Nevin  speaks  out  more  candidly,  and  freely 
admits  this,  for  he  tells  us  that  the  "  reieningf 
theology  of  Protestantism"  is  of  an  altogether 
different  type,  it  is  on  an  entirely  different  basis 
from  that  of  the  new  theology,  it  is  "another 
gospel."  He  says  of  his  theology,  that  it  "rests 
in  a  wholly  different  style  of  religious  thought" 


*  Thus,  Dr.  Nevin  asserts  that  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross  is 
to  be  regarded  as  "  a  necessary  all-glorious  mode  or  condition  only 
of  the  process"  of  redemption  by  His  incarnation.  The  redemption 
of  mankind,  according  to  this  view,  was  by  the  incarnation,  and  not 
by  the  death,  of  Christ. 


40 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


from  that  of  the  other  side.  Nay,  he  says  that 
they  are  two  gospels  arrayed  against  each 
other,  so  that  the  one  must  look  upon  the  other 
as  wi'ong  and  false  !  (See  Appendix  B.)  And 
here  in  this  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  divergerlce 
in  its  beginnings.  The  new  theology  starts  in 
the  incarnation,  and  from  that  develops  its 
peculiar  views  in  such  sense  as  to  set  aside,  or 
change  and  modify,  every  doctiHne  of  the  Chris- 
tian system.  Not  a  few  "  ranting  sects,"  there- 
fore, nor  a  minority  of  ministers  in  this  or  that 
denomination,  are  wrong,  according  to  this  new 
system,  but  the  entir'e  Protestant  Church  of  all 
branches,    German,    English,    and    American. '=" 

*  We  all  remember  how,  some  years  ago,  there  was  a  constant 
appeal  made  to  German  theology  as  favoring  the  new  Mercersburg 
system.  The  writer  of  these  pages  once  modestly  asked  an  ardent 
favorer  of  the  new  position  to  what  German  authors  he  referred  as 
being  in  accord  with  the  Mercersburg  theology.  He  did  not  know 
any  one  in  particular,  was  at  last  his*  reply,  but  he  thought  Thoiuck 
and  Krummacher  (sic!).  In  the  course  of  time,  however,  German 
theology  and  its  glory  had  departed,  and  it  was  so  announced  in  the 
most  public  and  pronounced  way,  and  "Anglican''''  (the  High  Church 
or  Puseyite  movement)  was  declared  to  be  the  watchword,  although 
this  even  does  not  hold  to  any  such  theosophic  or  rationalistic  specu- 
lation in  regard  to  the  incarnation.  This  view  is,  what  its  friends  claim 
for  it,  new,  at  least  in  its  application  to  Christian  doctrines  in  the  his- 
torical Protestant  churches.  It  is  subjective  in  the  worst  sense  of  the 
term,  i.e.  human  philosophical  specul.ition  carried  into  the  word  of 
God.  It  is  also  eminently  unhistorical.  So  also  was  Swedenborg's 
speculation  new  in  its  day.  The  learned  and  well-meaning  Count 
dreamed  learnedly  and  mucli,  but  the  world  h;is  becume  neither  wiser 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  a^ 

For  nothing-  is  more  palpable  than  that  on  this 
doctrine  of  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ  all  of 
them  are  a  unit.  All  hold  to  it  as  fundamental 
to  the  Christian  system;  with  more  or  less  clear- 
ness. Only  the  leading  men  of  this  new  the- 
ology "  cannot  believe"  it  to  be  such,  and  they 
cannot  because  their  system  is  constructed  upon 
an  entirely  different  theory.  According  to  it 
there  is  no  room  for  the  atoning  sacrifice  of 
Christ  as  a  fundamental  article  in  the  doctrinal 
system  of  redemption.  And  although  the  Hei- 
delberg Catechism  (with  the  whole  Protestant 
evangelical  Church)  holds  to  it  as  with  one 
voice,  those  brethren  cannot  believe  it,  and, 
more  painful  than  all,  they  attempt  to  eviscerate 
the  doctrine  and  give  it  an  entirely  different 
meaning,  pronouncing  every  one  who  believes 
in  that  precious  truth  as  taught  in  our  symbol 
and  the  word  of  God,  a  "  superficial"  reader. 
Let  the  bold  declaration  of  a  professor  in  our 
theological    seminary  at   Lancaster  stand    out 

nor  better  for  his  philosophic  dreams,  and  few  now  care  to  be  at  the 
pains  to  understand  them.  Dr.  Dorner,  whom  Dr.  Nevin  claimed  as 
favoring  his  views  (in  a  speech  at  the  Dayton  Synod),  regarding  his 
influence  as  of  immense  weight  to  his  new  theory,  and  so  liivcwise  Dr. 
Ullmann  and  Dr.  Jul.  Miiller,  have  since  been  cast  out  as  of  no  ac- 
count whatever,  chiefly,  it  would  seem,  because  they  cannot  judge  of 
theology  and  philosophy  from  the  clogs  of  a  State  Church  around 
them  !  And  yet  who  have  spoken  more  freely  &.nd  boldly  on  the 
freedom  of  the  Church  from  the  State  than  Dr.  Dorner,  right  under 
the  shadow  of  the  Prussian  palace  ? 
4* 


42  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

clearly  before  the  whole  Church,  as  expressed  in 
his  own  words : 

''A  superficial  study  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism may  make  tlie  itnpression  that  the  atoniiig 
sacrifice  of  Christ  accomplished  on  the  cross  is  not 
only^  essential,  btU  also  fundamental  and  principial, 
in  its  doctrinal  system  of  redemption.  .  .  .  That 
this  doctrinal  system  underlies  and  animates  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  we  cannot  believe." 

Looking  back  upon  what  we  have  thus  far 
written,  we  may  well  ask  the  question  at  this 
point.  Shall  we  allow  ourselves  to  change  the 
entire  meaning  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
and  all  the  Reformed  Confessions,  and  the  expe- 
rience of  the  best  Christians  in  all  ages,  and  also 
the  clear  teachings  of  Holy  Writ,  in  favor  of 
such  a  purely  human  speculative  view  as  this, 
that  when  Christ  became  man  He  assumed 
generic  humanity  and  so  in  principle  redeemed 
humanity  ?  It  is  in  truth  a  mere  assumption, 
without  a  particle  of  proof,  that  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  "generic  humanity."  It  is  furthermore 
a  pure  assumption,  without  a  particle  of  proof, 
that  Christ  assumed  generic  humanity.  It  is, 
in  the  third  place,  a  pure  supposition,  without 
any  proof  at  all,  that  Christ's  assumption  of 
humanity  was  a  redemption  of  man.  The 
Scriptures  point  to  the  cross  as  the  redemption. 
Thus  this  system  is  brought  into  being  by  piling 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  43 

assumption  upon  assumption:  so  unstable  is  it 
in  its  foundation.  But  worst  of  all,  as  we  have 
shown,  it  entirely  changes  the  gospel  of  salva- 
tion. Can  any  one  point  out  an  example  in  the 
New  Testament  where  an  apostle,  or  any  other 
convert,  bases  his  hope  and  certainty  of  salva- 
tion upon  any  such  basis  as  this  ?  "  God  forbid," 
says  Paul,  "  that  I  should  glory,  save  in  the  cross 
ofour  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Gal.  vi.  14).  The  same 
Paul,  thrice  in  a  single  chapter  (Col.  i.  14,  19,  20), 
emphasizes  the  true  doctrine  as  follows :  "  It 
pleased  the  Father  that  in  Him  should  all  full- 
ness dwell ;  and,  having  made  peace  through  the 
blood  of  the  ci^oss,  by  Him  to  reconcile  all  things 
to  Himself"  If  this  new  theory  prevails,  we 
shall  have  to  re-write  not  only  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  but  the  New  Testament  itself.  As 
that  blessed  book  has  been  apprehended  by  the 
long  line  of  martyrs,  confessors,  and  believers, 
it  gave  forth  no  such  sound  as  that. 

JUSTIFICATION    BY    FAITH. 

Another  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel 
and  of  the  evangelical  Protestant  Church,  is 
that  of  justification  by  faith.  It  relates  to  the 
question  how  man  comes  into  possession  of  the 
great  blessings  of  the  redemption  accomplished 
by  Christ.  No  truth  can  be  of  greater  impor- 
tance than  the  truth  which  tells  him  how  he  may 


44  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

be  just  before  God,  or,  in  other  words,  what  he 
must  do  to  be  saved.  The  gospel  answer  is 
clear  as  a  sunbeam,  and  it  comes  from  the  lips 
of  inspired  apostles :  "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  It 
comes  from  Christ  Himself:  "  Him  that  cometh 
unto  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out."  That  it  is 
effective  is  testified  to  by  all  the  apostles  :  "  But 
as  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believe  on  His  name"  (John  i.  12). 
"Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have 
peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  (Rom.  v.  i).  And  yet  this  clearly-re- 
vealed truth  became  darkened  and  overloaded 
with  so  much  error  durine  the  centuries  before 
the  Reformation,  that  it  was  scarcely  understood 
by  one  in  a  thousand.  Bodily '  self-inflictions, 
penances,  going  into  cloisters  away  from  the 
outside  world,  paying  money  to  erect  shrines 
and  altars  to  the  saints  and  the  Virgin, — these 
were  some  of  the  ways  by  which  men  were  to 
obtain  the  favor  of  God  and  the  peace  of  their 
consciences.  And  when  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury this  system  of  man  had  reached  its 
pinnacle,  when  salvation  was  literally  sold  for 
money  by  traveling  monks  (a  Tetzel,  in  Ger- 
many, for  instance),  God  raised  up  men  in 
different   countries  of  Europe   to  re-announcc 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  45 

the  simple  teachings  of  God's  Holy  Word  on 
this  subject.    The  Reformation  proclaimed  with 
clarion  voice  that  the  sinner  is  justified  by  God 
freely,  and   that  when   he  humbly  approaches 
Him  he  can  lay  hold  of  (or  believe)  the  blessed 
truth  that  his  sins  are  forgiven  for  the  sake  of 
the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ.    This  truth 
the  Reformers  found  in  the  gospel ;  they  found 
it  sealed  to  them  by  the  sacraments  ;  they  found 
it  witnessed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  personal 
consciousness,  in    their  own    experience.      So 
Luther,  so  Zwingle,  Melanchthon,  Calvin,  and 
all  the  host  of  great   and  good   men  of  that 
period;    thus   they   believed,   thus    they  wrote 
and  preached,  and  in  this  faith  they  died  full  of 
hope  and  peace  and  joy.    When  Olevianus,  one 
of   the  authors  of   the   Heidelberg  Catechism, 
was  on  his  dying  bed,  and  was  asked  by  one 
whether  he  was  certain  of  his  salvation,  he  re- 
plied by  a  single  word  in  Latin,  "  CertissimiLS  /" 
"perfectly  sure,"  and,  laying  his  hand  upon  his 
breast,  quietly  expired.    These  men  of  God  had 
read  such    passages  as   these    in   their  Bible : 
"  The  just  shall  live  by  faith."  "  We  have  redemp- 
tion through  His  blood."  "  He  (Jesus)  hath  made 
peace  through  the  blood  of  His  cross."   We  are 
justified  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Him. 
"  We  are  justified  in  His  name."  "  Believe  on  the 
Lord    Jesus   Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved" 


46 


MER CERSB URG    THE O LOG V. 


(Gal.  iii.  1 1 ;  Eph.  i.  7  ;  Rom.  iii.  24  ;  i  Cor.  i.  30 ; 
Acts  xvi.  31). 

In  perfect  accordance  with  this  truth  is  the 
teaching  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  as  we 
shall  now  prove. 

The  2ist  Question  and  Answer  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  What  is  true  faith  ? 

"  True  faith  is  not  only  a  certain  knowledge, 
whereby  I  hold  for  truth  all  that  God  has  re- 
vealed to  us  in  His  word,  but  also  an  assured 
confidence,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  works  by  the 
gospel  in  my  heart ;  that  not  only  to  others, 
but  to  me  also,  remission  of  sin,  everlasting 
righteousness,  and  salvation,  are  freely  given 
by  God,  merely  of  grace,  only  for  the  sake  of 
Christ's  merits." 

Faith,  therefore,  according  to  the  Catechism, 
consists  in  kiicnuledge  and  an  assiL7'ed  confidence  ; 
a  knowledge  of  that  in  which  we  are  to  believe, 
and  an  application  which  every  one  who  exer- 
cises this  faith  or  confidence  makes  to  himself, 
that  his  sin  is  freely  remitted  unto  him  for  the 
sake  of  Christ's  merits.  "  The  efficient  cause  of 
justifying  faith,"  says  Ursinus,  "  is  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  instnmicjital  cause  is  the  gospel, 
in  which  the  use  of  the  sacraments  is  also  com- 
prehended. The  subject  of  this  faith  is  the  will 
and  heart  of  man." 

So  much  for  the  Catechism. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


47 


Let  us  now  quote  only  a  few  other  authori- 
ties, not  the  authorized  confessions  of  other 
evangehcal  communions,  for  these,  as  every 
one  can  see,  are  all  in  full  accord  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  but  theologians  of  acknowledged  standing 
in  Protestant  Christendom. 

Dj^.  Krummacher  (Reformed) :  "  The  doctrine 
of  justification  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  and 
received  by  faith,  is  the  dividing  line  between 
the  Protestant  evanorelical  and  the  Roman 
Church.  It  is  here  we  obtain  that  joyful  assu- 
rance of  our  salvation,  and  the  consequent 
peace  which  flows  therefrom.  And  our  own 
Reformed  Church  holds  and  ever  has  held  fast 
to  this  truth."  Tholiuk  (Lutheran)  :  "  When, 
looking  at  yourself  and  within  yourself,  you 
feel  sad  and  despondent,  then  look  with  peni- 
tence and  faith  ever  deeper  and  deeper  into  the 
centre,  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  of  God  is  made 
unto  us  wisdom,  righteousness  (justification), 
sanctification,  and  redemption.  Forever  will  it 
remain  true  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  and 
have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  {^Geiuissenspredigten,  i860).  Dr.  Lut- 
hardt  (Lutheran):  "The  cause  of  forgiveness 
(of  sins)  is  in  God  alone  and  in  His  free  mercy. 
It  is  this  which  forgives  us  for  the  sake  of  Christ 
and  His  redemption  It  is  through  this  that 
God's  holiness  has  made  it  possible  for  itself  to 
forgive  us.  But  it  is  oii7'  faith  which  lays  hold 
upon  this  grace,  for  it  is  a  faith  in  the  grace  of 
redemption.     It  is  by  faith  that  we  obtain  for- 


48  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

giveness,  for,  as  Luther  says,  'What  thou  be- 
hevest,  that  thou  hast.'  Not  that  the  ground 
of  forgiveness  Hes  hi  our  faith,  as  though  it 
were  so  meritorious  an  act,  so  good  a  work, 
that  God  must  reward  it ;  nor  in  our  love  which 
proceeds  from  faith,  nor  in  our  repentance 
which  begets  it ;  it  is  not  in  2is,  but  only  in  God 
and  m  the  atoning  death  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is 
this  which,  with  the  Apostle  Paul,  we  call  jus- 
tification, namely,  our  acquittal  from  all  guilt 
and  punishment,  and  our  admission  to  the 
rights  of  sonship.  Not  because  we  are  not 
sinners,  but  though  we  are  sinners ;  nay,  just 
because  we  are  sinners,  and  believe  in  His 
pardoning  grace,  are  we  pronounced  free, 
guiltless,  and  just,  and  received  into  favor. 
Justification,  then,  is  not  a  change  which  takes 
place  ill  us,  but,  if  we  may  so  speak,  an  occur- 
rence which  takes  place  hi  God, — a  change  in 
the  sentence  He  passes  upon  us,  in  His  view 
of  us,  in  our  value  in  His  sight.  He  chooses 
to  regard  and  treat  us  as  His  children  ;  for  the 
Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  with  our  spirits 
that  we  are  the  children  of  God ;  bears  this 
witness  through  the  Word  of  God,  which 
addresses  us  in  those  loving  terms.  My  son, 
my  daughter,  be  of  good  comfort,  thy  sins 
are  forgiven  thee ;  thy  faith  hath  made  thee 
whole.  Thus  does  the  Spirit,  by  means  of 
the  Word,  produce  in  our  hearts  the  glad, 
the  God-reposed  assurance  which  a  Chris- 
tian must  possess,  if  he  is  to  live  and  die 
as  a  Christian  should ;  for  from  this  alone  ^ 
can    grow   a   happy  childlike    love    to   God,  a 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


49 


grateful    obedience  in    life,  and  a  joyful    hope 
in  death."* 

Dr.  Pressense  (the  eminent  French  Reformed 
divine) : 

"  We  never  could  succeed  in  weaving  a  wed- 
ding garment  such  as  would  allow  of  our  sitting 
down  at  our  heavenly  Father's  banquet.  We 
must  receive  it  from  the  Redeemer's  hand ;  and 
this  robe  is  His  own  royal  robe,  which  He  has 
dyed  in  the  crimson  of  His  own  blood.  We 
cannot  appear  before  God  except  as  we  are 
clothed  in  His  righteousness.  But  He  will  not 
clothe  us  in  this  until  we  have  approached  Him 
with  an  ardent  desire  to  receive  His  grace,  and 
until,  like  the  poor  daughter  of  Israel  who  met 
Him  one  day,  we  have  seized  with  a  trembling 
hand  that  holy  robe  with  which  we  must  be  cov- 
ered. In  other  words,  we  can  only  share  in 
His  merits  through  the  faith  which  unites  us  to 
Him.  What  He  did  for  us  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago  is  of  no  value  without  this  faith,  this 
personal  adherence,  to  Him. 

*  "  Saving  Truths  of  Christianity,"  by  Doctor  and  Professor  Lut- 
hardt.  Translated  from  the  German  by  Sophia  Taylor.  Edinburgh : 
T.  &  T.  Clark.  New  York :  Scribner,  Welford  &  Co.,  1868.  To  stu- 
dents and  intelligent  laymen  no  more  instructive,  interesting,  and 
edifying  book  can  be  recommended  than  this.  Its  strong  arguments 
are  clearly  stated;  its  illustrations  are  beautiful  and  convincing;  whilst 
its  style  is  remarkable  for  its  simplicity.  Appended  to  these  ten 
lectures  are  literary  and  theological  notes  covering  150  pages  full  of 
profound  learning.  The  author  is  a  Lutheran  of  the  moderate 
Evangelical  type,  but  just  such  a  Lutheran  as  all  Christians  must  honor 
and  love.  We  cordially  recommend  the  work  to  ministers  and  people, 
5  D 


50 


MER CERSB UR G    THE OLOGY. 


"  He  only  will  be  saved  who  unites  himself 
to  Christ,  not  with  a  view  of  offering  again  a 
sacrifice  which  was  perfect  in  itself,  but  in  order 
to  make  it  his  own  by  an  earnest  acceptance 
and  a  living  faith.  If  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
merits  was  all  external,  it  would  be  found  that 
He  had  obeyed  in  order  to  dispense  us  from 
obeying.  If  that  had  been  His  object,  He  need 
not  have  left  heaven  at  all." 

But  let  this  suffice  in  the  way  of  quotation. 
The  doctrine  of  jitstijication  by  faith  is  that  of 
the  univei^sal  Evangelical  Church  of  Christe7t- 
dom. 

Whilst  penning  these  lines,  the  newspapers  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  are  sending  forth 
over  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land  the 
proceedings  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance'''  in  the 
former  city,  where  are  assembled  representative 
men.  Christian  ministers  and  laymen,  from  the 
various  nations  of  Europe,  and  even  from  the 
far-off  Orient,  and  every  man  of  them  who  has 
spoken  his  sentiments, — the  dignitary  of  the 
Church  of  England,  the  learned  professor  in 
the  university,  the  nobleman.  Reformed,  Lu- 
theran, Presbyterian,  Episcopal,  Independent, 
Methodist,  all, — all  as  with  one  voice  testify  to 
this  doctrine  as  a  standing  article  of  the  Chris- 
tian system.     Constrained  for  months  past  by 

*  For  a  further  notice  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  see  Appendix. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  ^i 

family  affliction  to  spend  his  time  in  the  nar- 
rower circle  of  his  home,  the  writer  has  been 
quickened  and  refreshed  in  spirit  whilst  reading, 
day  after  day,  the  deep-toned  and  inspiriting 
utterances  of  these  Christian  men,  commingling 
from  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  touching  thou- 
sands of  other  hearts  all  over  Protestant  Chris- 
tendom.* Not  one  discordant  utterance  has 
been  heard  on  this  precious  gospel  truth.     Let 


*  And  yet,  sad  to  say,  one  of  our  professors  in  the  Lancaster  Semi- 
nary 'S  found  making  an  attempt — feeble  and  futile,  to  be  sure — to 
prejudice  us  against  the  (then  prospective)  meeting  of  that  body,  by 
raising  objections  against  one  of  the  topics  in  its  programm4,  on  the 
subject  of  "  Prayer  for  the  Outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  Christians" 
throughout  the  world,  and  othe;  objects.  In  several  articles  in  the 
Messenger  a  long  and  labored  effort  was  made  to  show  that  prayer  for 
such  blessings  is  wrong,  and  the  sentiment  false,  because  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  always  in  Christ's  mystical  body,  the  Church ;  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  always  "  abides  and  works  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  are  bap- 
tized into  Christ."  All  that  we  wisli  to  say  to  this  new  view  is,  that  if 
it  were  true,  we  ought  to  have  a  large  number  of  our  hymns  expunged 
from  our  Hymn-Books,  or  at  least  greatly  changed, — hymns  which 
have  warmed  the  hearts  of  millions  of  God's  people,  such  as,  "  Come, 
Holy  Spirit,  come,"  "  O  heil'ger  Geist,  kehr  bei  uns  ein,"  Paul  Ger- 
hardt's  "O  Sacred  Head  now  Wounded,"  and  very  many  others.  Even 
the  new  Liturgy  would  have  to  he  tinned  down  in  some  of  its  prayers 
in  which  there  are  expressions  of  what  the  professor  calls  a  "  Rational- 
istic decadence,"  and  "error  and  unbelief"  (!).  It  grieves  us  in  our 
inmost  soul,  that  one  of  our  theological  teachers,  for  whom  we  have 
ever  entertained  great  respect,  and  who  in  former  years  held  entirely 
different  views,  should  be  capable  of  uttering  views  which,  according 
to  our  convictions,  sound  rationalizing, — yea.  Rationalistic.  We  see 
plainly  enough  that  the  "  new  theology"  has  no  room  in  its  theoiy 
for  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  accepted  evangelical  sense  as  held  from  the 
beginning.    But  this  does  not  nuke  it  any  better,  but  worse  a  great  deal. 


52 


MER  CERSB  UR G    THEOL  O G  Y. 


the  question  be  asketl  and  pondered,  Are  all 
these  men  wrong? 

But  it  may  be  asked, — 

DOES   THE    NEW  OR    MERCERSBURG   THEORY   TEACH 
A    DIFFERENT   VIEW? 

We  say  decidedly,  Yes,  it  does. 

This  follows  already  as  a  natural  consequence 
from  its  incarnation  theory  as  the  central  dogma 
in  Christianity.  As  we  have  seen,  its  theory  of 
redemption  is  radically  different  from  that  of 
the  Reformed  Church,  in  that  it  is  said  to  con- 
sist in  an  organic  conveyance  or  transmission 
*'  of  the  substance  of  the  glorified  humanity  of 
Christ"  to  man.  Hence,  as  this  redemption  is 
in  reality  of  a  physical  nature,  in  some  way, — 
physical  in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  ethical  or 
spiritual, — so  also  the  method  or  means  of  apply- 
ing to  man  this  redemption  must  be  of  the  same 
nature.  It  is  not  a  spiritual  operation,  not  an 
influence  exerted  upon  the  soul  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  a  transmission  of  a  substance.  It 
follows,  hence,  that  faith,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Catechism,  is  set  aside,  or  so  eviscerated  that 
nothing  but  the  shadow  of  it  is  left.  According 
to  the  new  theory  of  Mercersburg  and  Lan- 
caster, faith  is  a  sort  of  organ  of  the  soul  which 
lays  hold  of  or  apprehends  the  theanthropic 
life  of  Christ  in  a  real,  substantial  way.    It  holds' 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  ro 

also  that  there  are  certain  channels  or  means 
(first  of  all  Baptism)  by  which  this  peculiar  life 
is  transmitted.  Stick  faith,  however,  is  not  the 
believing  "with  the  heart  unto  righteousness," 
and  so  unto  salvation ;  not  that  faith  which  the 
Apostle  (Rom.  v.  i-6)  holds  up  in  triumph, 
as  that  which  justifies  and  blesses  its  possessor 
with  such  glorious  prerogatives.  It  is  not  the 
faith  of  the  Protestant  Church,  and  most  cer- 
tainly not  that  of  our  Heidelberg  Catechism.* 

What  the  new  theory  calls  faith  is  a  faith  in 
ike  Ckiirck  and  that  which  is  comprehended  in 
all  that  belongs  to  it.  (Hence  some  of  the  friends 
and  supporters  of  that  theory  frequently  say 
that  to  believe  in  the  Church  and  to  believe  in 


*  The  editor  of  an  Old- School  German  Lutheran  paper  ("  Getneinde- 
Blatt''')  in  the  West, — the  same  body,  we  believe,  to  which  Professor 
Kiitschel  belongs,  who  found  Dr.  Nevin's  view  on  the  sacraments 
rather  palatable,  only  that  he  went  still  further  than  these  High  Church 
Lutherans  could  go, — in  noticing  the  last  conversion  of  a  Reformed 
minister  to  the  Roman  Church,  says, — 

"We  have  long  been  convinced  that  the  views  of  Nevin  in  regard 
to  the  Church  {^Kirchcnthttm  Nevins)  is  nothing  else  than  a  Roman- 
izing tendency,  and  that  one  thing  is  wanted  to  make  it  soundly  Lu- 
theran, and  that  is  exactly  the  principal  thing,  namely,  justification  by 
faith  alone."  These  High  Church  Lutherans  cannot  but  be  pleased 
with  many  things  in  the  new  theoiy  of  Mercersburg  and  Lancaster,  and 
which  these  last  eagerly  lay  as  a  flittering  unction  to  themselves;  but 
when  it  comes  to  the  main  thing,  these  Lutherans  repudiate  the  new 
theory  in  the  most  decided  way.  And  so  long  as  they  do  this,  so 
long  as  they  hold  fast  by  this  Reformation  truth,  they  are  still  soundly 
Protestant  and  evangelical,  however  they  may  out-Luther  Luther  in 
some  other  regards. 
5* 


54 


MER  CERSB  UR G    THEOL  OGY. 


Christ  Is  the  same  thing !)  A  faith  in  Christ,  a 
justifying  faith,  In  the  language  and  the  sense 
of  the  Catechism  and  the  New  Testament,  Is 
therefore  ruled  out  by  the  new  theory.  In  fact, 
it  cannot  be  otherwise,  If  the  previous  positions 
of  the  Incarnation  theory  and  the  Mercersburg 
notion  of  the  Church  are  held.  Accordlne"  to 
the  new  theory,  the  sinner  Is  justified  and  saved 
in  an  entirely  different  way.  We  will  allow  Dr. 
Dorner  to  corroborate  what  is  here  said.*  He 
refers  in  this  extract  to  that  part  of  Dr.  Kevin's 
"Vindication"  of  the  Liturgy  in  which  he  charges 
his  opponents  with  denying  the  historical  Christ 
of  the  Incarnation,  the  onward  flow  of  His 
(Christ's)  life  transmitting  itself  through  Bap- 
tism and  the  Holy  Supper,  which  he  calls  the 
spirit  of  Antichrist,  and  other  very  harsh  epi- 
thets which  we  forbear  to  transcribe.  Dr. 
Dorner  says, — 

"  Underlying  this  entire  statement,  there  is 
an  identification  of  the  CImrch  In  its  actual,  his- 


*  Dr.  I.  A.  Dorner,  one  of  the  most  eminent  theologians  in  Ger- 
many, and  a  professor  in  the  University  of  Berlin.  Dr.  Nevin  had 
frequently  appealed  to  him  as  holding  similar  views  in  regard  to  the 
person  of  Christ,  etc.  A  few  years  ago  Dorner  felt  constrained  to 
])ublish  a  lengthy  and  exhaustive  criticism  on  Dr.  Nevin's  theory  as 
this  is  unfolded  in  the  Mercersburg  Rerie^c,  the  Liturgy,  etc.  This 
criticism,  whilst  breathing  a  kind  and  truly  Christian  spirit,  is  a  decided 
protest  against  every  fundamental  position  in  the  new  theory,  '^e 
shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  some  of  these  criticisms  in  the  sequel. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


55 


torical  manifestation  imth  Christ.  Only  he  be- 
lieves in  an  objective  and  historical  Christ 
(according  to  Nevin)  who  sees  in  the  Church 
not  merely  the  witness  of  Christ,  but  the  his- 
torically self-unfolding  and  developing  Christ 
Himself;  and  only  in  this  sense  does  there 
remain,  in  his  view,  any  immediate  relation 
between  Christ  and  the  believer.  That  the 
importance  of  Christ  as  the  Mediator,  in  and 
of  itself,  is  thus  made  to  stand  back  of  this 
Church,  is  especially  seen  in  the  fact  that  his 
theory  dwells  mostly  on  the  mystical  communi- 
cation of  the  life  of  Christ,  on  the  expansion  of 
the  theanthropic  life,  whilst  it  has  little  to  say 
of  justification,  but  rather  allows  this  to  be 
merged'-'  in  sanctification.  For  the  Church 
can  be  thus  identified  with  Christ  only  by  ig- 
noring the  work  of  atonement  and  justification 
(which  rests  in  the  earthly  and  heavenly  high- 
priesthood  of  Christ)  in  its  important  principial 
signification,  and  by  laying  the  whole  weight 
only  upon  the  powers  of  sanctification  which 
are  unfolded  in  the  Church,  and  which  are  me- 
diated to  believers  through  the  Church  and  her 
organs,  and  only  through  them.f  This  will 
become  still  clearer  by  the  following  statement 
of  Nevin:  'Where  the  gospel  (he  says)  is  not 
apprehended  as  the  historical  (in  the  Church), 
enduring,  objective  manifestation  of  God  in  the 
flesh,  there   can   be   no  steady  apprehension  of 


*  Verschwimmen  liisst,  dissolved. 

j-  On  the  importance  of  distinguishing  justification  from  sanctifica- 
tion, see  Appendix  C. 


5 6  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

that  which  constitutes  the  proper  mystei'y  of  it 
in  this  view,  namely,  the  union  there  is  in  it  of 
the  supernatural  with  the  natural  in  an  abiding, 
historical  (not  magical)  form.  This  precisely  is 
the  true  object  of  an  evangelical  faith  in  the 
New  Testament  sense,  the  objective  power  of 
salvation,  through  the  apprehension  of  which 
only  faith  becomes  justifying  and  saving' " 
(p.  78).        . 

After  reminding  Dr.  Nevin  that  his  severe 
accusations  against  his  opponents  and  other 
denominations  for  being  extremely  "  subject- 
ive"''' is  uncalled  for,  seeing  how  firmly  they 
cling  to  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  to  the  cruci- 
fied Redeemer,  and  justification  by  faith  alone 
(all  of  them  clearly  revealed,  and  therefore 
objective  truths),  he  says  : 

"  He  himself  moves  in  a  subjectivism  of  his 
own  which  deceives  itself  with  a  delusive  '  ob- 
jectivism.' For  where  does  he  get  his  certainty 
of  his  idea  of  the  Church,  and  where  are  the 
proofs  for  it  ?  Arbitrarily  and  without  proper 
judgment  he  takes  for  granted  as  true  what  the 
Church  before  the  Reformation  says  of  itself, 
whilst  he  still  does  not  allow  that  the  Papacy  is 
a  Divine  institution  ;  and  yet  by  rejecting  it,  to 
be  consistent,  he  ought  to  reject  all  that  was  the 
oerin  of  it.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  a  person  can 
by  faith  attain  to  a  Divine  and  joyful  assurance 


*  Subjective,  internal  view  or  feeling,  and  is  opposed  to  objective,  or 
views  governed  by  thnt  which  is  from  without.  v 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


57 


of  his  personal  salvation,  and  hence  also  of 
Christ  as  his  Redeemer,  because  the  power  of 
the  gospel  which  he  has  received  testifies  of 
itself.  13ut  how  faith  is  to  attain  to  any  cer- 
tainty from  that  church-theory  is  difficult  to 
see,  unless  it  be  arbitrarily,  or  by  an  arbitrary 
surrender  to  churchly  authority." 

Just  so.  The  faith  of  the  new  theory  is  a 
faith  in  the  so-called  "  objective"  powers  in  the 
"  Church."  The  faith  of  the  gospel,  the  faith 
as  explained  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and 
of  the  whole  evangelical  Church,  is  something 
not  so  exclusively  and  entirely  "objective,"  but 
also  subjective,  inward,  personal,  and  experi- 
mental. It  is  "  not  only  a  certain  kjiowledge, 
.  ,  .  but  also  an  asstircd  confidence,  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  works  by  the  gospel  in  my  heart ; 
that  not  only  to  others,  but  to  vie  also,  remission 
of  sin,  everlasting  righteousness,  and  salvation 
are  freely  given  by  God,  merely  of  grace,  only 
for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merits." 

This  is  where  we  as  Protestants  stand ;  this 
is  where  the  Reformed  Church  and  her  symbol 
stand,  and  we  trust  in  God  will  ever  stand, — 

"  When  rolling  years  shall  cease  to  move." 

And  though  an  angel  from  heaven  should  preach 
to  us  another  gospel  than  this,  we  cannot,  we 
will  not  believe  it,  for  there  is  not  another 
(Gal.  i,  7). 


58 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


ARE    MINISTERS    OF   THE    GOSPEL    PRIESTS? 

This  is  a  vital  question.  It  is  another  di- 
viding hne  between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the 
Church  of  the  Reformation,  inckiding-  not  only 
the  Reformed  and  Lutheran,  but  also  the  Church 
of  England,  and  others.  The  word  "  priest"  is 
supposed  to  be  abbreviated  from  the  word 
"  presbyter,"  which  means  an  elder.  In  the 
Episcopal  Church  the  term/;7>^/is  indeed  used 
in  her  Prayer  Book,  but  not  (as  will  be  shown 
hereafter)  in  the  sense  of  the  Jewish  economy. 
The  Roman  Catholic  Church  alone  employs  the 
word  in  that  sense,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  sense 
of  one  who  offers  sacrifice.  By  no  Protestant 
Church  is  the  term  used  or  recognized  except 
when  referring  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
the  only  true  Priest,  with  His  one  altar  and 
one  sacrifice,  "  once  for  all"  (time)  made  on  the 
cross.  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold,  a  clergyman  of  the 
English  (Episcopal)  Church,  who  died  in  1842, 
gives  the  definition  of  the  priest's  office  in  these 
words  :  "  The  essential  point  in  the  notion  of 
a  priest  is  this :  that  he  is  a  person  necessary  to 
our  intercourse  with  God,  without  being  neces- 
sary or  beneficial  to  us  morally," 

It  might  be  asked,  however,  whether  it  is  not 
just  as  proper  to  have  a  priesthood,  an  altar, 
and  sacrifices  in  the  Church  now  as  under  the 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  ^q 

Jewish  economy.  Why  not  call  the  ministry  a 
priesthood,  the  Lord's  supper  a  sacrifice,  and 
the  communion-table  an  altar? 

To  this  it  might  be  replied,  in  the  language 
of  the  moderate  and  judicious  Dr.  Hoff,  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  that  "  it  ought  to  be  reason 
enough  for  us  that  we  know  the  inspired  writers 
constantly  avoid  the  use  of  such  terms  in  this 
connection/''  The  words  to  express  the  Jewish 
minister  and  the  Christian,  and  their  acts,  are 
always  carefully  distinguished. "-]- 

That  the  terms  "  priest"  and  "  priesthood" 
were  used  at  an  early  day  in  the  Christian 
Church  is  very  true.  Christian  converts  from 
the  Jewish  Church  were  familiar  with  those 
terms,  and  would  easily  fall  into  the  accustomed 
phraseology,  even  when  not  ascribing  the  origi- 
nal meaninor  to  the  terms.  "  The  mistake  was 
natural,  but  the  effects  were  most  mischievous." 
In  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  and  onward, 
the  Judaizing  or  legalistic  leaven  was  already  at 
work,  as  the  waitings  of  that  period  clearly 
show.  The  truth  is,  the  tendency  of  the  human 
mind  is,  and  always  has  been,  to  rest  in  some- 


*  "The  Christian  Ministry  not  a  Priesthood."      Baltimore,  1869. 

■)■  I  Peter  ii.  5,  where  Christians  are  called  a  priesthood,  or  a  com- 
munity of  priests  Dr.  Lange,  in  his  commentary  on  the  passage, 
says,  "  All  believers  of  the  New  Testament  are  anointed  priests  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.''''     Not  a  particular  class  of  men,  therefore. 


6o  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

thing  clone  or  offered  by  ourselves  in  order  to 
merit  salvation.  Even  in  the  apostolic  period 
there  was  a  tendency  in  this  direction,  especially 
on  the  part  of  Jewish  converts, — a  leaning  to 
and  hankering  for  outward  observances,  an 
exalting  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  and  ceremonials 
to  such  an  extent  that  "  Christ  the  Crucified" 
was  in  a  measure  set  aside  as  the  **  All  and  in 
All."  Read  Galatians,  fifth  and  sixth  chapters, 
where  Paul  calls  it  "  falling  from  grace"  if  they 
regarded  circumcision  and  other  ceremonials 
and  ritualistic  observances  as  things  necessary 
to  salvation.  And  this  strong  language  is  used 
by  the  same  Paul  who,  at  an  earlier  period  in 
his  apostolate,  allowed  himself  to  bring  offerings 
to  the  temple,  and  himself  performed  the  rite 
of  circumcision  upon  Timothy  (Acts  xvi.  3),  by 
way  of  allaying  weak  consciences  who  had  not 
yet  been  able  to  free  themselves  from  what  had 
once  been  a  Divine  ordinance,  but  which  had 
no  more  binding  force.  (See  Appendix  F,  for 
some  remarks  by  Dr.  Neander.) 

In  the  lapse  of  time,  Christian  teachers  de- 
parted from  the  Scriptural  mode  of  speaking  on 
this  subject.  "  Christ  and  His  divinely-appointed 
intervention  for  the  reconciliation  of  man  to 
God  were  more  and  more  obscured  by  the 
obtrusive  services  of  the  earthly  priesthood, 
until  at  last  there  was  need  of  a  special  inter- 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  61 

position  from  above  to  restore  the  doctrine." 
Tliis  interposition  was  the  Reformation  in  the 
sixteenth  century. 

All  the  Reformers — German,  Swiss,  French, 
and  English — were  of  one  mind  on  this  subject. 
There  was  not  one  dissenting  voice  among 
them.  They  all  saw  clearly  that  just  this  very 
doctrine  of  a  mediating  human  priesthood  was 
the  foundation  of  all  that  is  erroneous  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  system.  That  system  was  the 
slow  growth  of  centuries.  But  the  beorinnincr 
of  the  system  as  it  now  stands,  culminating  in 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  rests  in  the  doctrine 
that  there  is  a  priesthood ;  that  there  is  a  class 
of  men  who  stand  between  sinful  man  and  his 
God  for  the  purpose  of  mediating  the  salvation 
of  the  gospel ;  that  man  can  only  through  the 
priest  (of  course  as  the  representative  of  the 
ChurcJi)  have  access  to  his  Maker  and  obtain 
His  favor. 

Now,  the  Reformers  had  full  knowledge  of 
the  results  of  centuries  of  slavish  subjection  to 
the  priest,  claiming  to  dispense  mercy  and  grace 
by  transmitted  authority,  to  the  neglect  of  God's 
written  word. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  look  at  the  religious 
sentiment  which  prevailed  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  and  which  still  prevails  in  the 
Roman  Church.      The  "judicious   Hooker,"  in 


62  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

England,  who  was  accused  of  being  too  mode- 
rate in  his  opposition  to  Romanism,  says  in  his 
"  Ecclesiastical  Polity :" 

"  The  Romanists  imagine  that  when  God  re- 
mits the  eternal  punishment  of  sin  He  reserves 
torments  to  be  endured  for  a  time  shorter  or 
longer  according  to  the  quality  of  men's  crimes. 
Yet  there  is  a  certain  contract  by  virtue  of 
which  works  assigned  by  the  priest  shall  satisfy 
God  touching  that  punishment.  Yet,  as  they 
cannot  assure  any  man  that  this  will  suffice,  they 
hold  that  the  soul  must  remain  in  unspeakable 
torture  until  all  be  paid.  Therefore  they  advise 
men  to  secure  prayers  and  sacrifices  after  they 
are  gone  [the  mass].  Hence  the  infinite  pen- 
sions of  their  priests,  the  building  of  so  many 
altars  and  tombs,  the  enriching  of  churches,  etc. 
But,  this  done,  how  far  it  will  avail  they  are  not 
sure.  Hence  they  have  invented  the  idea  that 
Christ's  merits  (over  and  above  what  are  neces- 
sary for  the  remission  of  the  eternal  penalty), 
and  those  of  the  saints  through  Him,  are  common 
stock,  to  which  the  Pope  has  the  key.  Christ 
remits  not  eternal  death  without  the  priest's 
absolution  (unless  in  certain  extreme  cases), 
and  the  Pope,  as  it  pleases  him,  delivers  from 
the  limited  punishment  which  may  remain." 

Let  the  reader  for  a  moment  look  at  this  cor- 
ruption from  which  the  Reformation  freed  the 
Church.  Think  of  the  contrast  between  such 
a  doctrine  and  that  of  full  and  perfect  forgive- 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  5 


O 


ness  to  every  one  who  believes  in  Jesus  !     And 
this  is  what  the  gospel  teaches. 

But  whilst  Romanists  demand  such  a  hio-h 
claim  for  priestly  intervention,  they  sometimes 
relax  this  claim  in  a  manner  entirely  incon- 
sistent with  themselves.  Thus,  some  of  their 
doctors  teach  that  "whosoever  turneth  to  God 
with  his  whole  heart  hath  immediately  his  sins 
taken  away."  Now,  if  they  are  pardoned  of 
God  before  they  come  to  the  priest,  how  then 
can  they  say  that  the  priest  remits  anything? 
Yet  when  Protestants  ascribe  the  work  of 
remission  to  God,  and  interpret  the  priest's 
sentence  to  be  but  a  solemn  declaration  of  that 
which  God  Himself  has  already  performed,  they 
scorn  at  it.    [Hooker.) 

The  Protestant  Doctrine. 

Now  let  us  see  what  the  Protestant  Church, 
— especially  the  Reformed  branch  of  it,  in  the 
narrow  sense — teaches  on  this  subject. 

In  the  31st  Question  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism, Christ  is  spoken  of  as  "our  only  High 
Priest,  who  by  the  one  sacrifice  of  His  body 
has  redeemed  us,"  etc.  Nowhere  in  that  excel- 
lent and  precious  summary  of  Divine  truth  does 
the  word  "priest"  or  "priesthood"  occur  in  con- 
nection with  the  Christian  ministry,  nor  is  there 
anything  like  an   allusion   to  the   powers  and 


54  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

functions  of  a  priest,  in  the  Romish  sense, 
according  to  which  the  blessing  of  pardon  is 
bound  to  the  act  of  the  priest.  We  may  say 
clearly  and  emphatically,  the  New  Testament 
Church,  the  Apostolic  Church,  and,  in  accord- 
ance with  her,  the  Protestant  Church,  has  no 
PRIESTS  AND  NO  PRIESTHOOD.  What  the  Reform- 
ers contended  for — every  one  of  them — was 
the  ttniversal  priesthood  of  all  Christians  as 
againsi  the  false  assumptions  of  Romanism. 
Rome  said.  You  can  only  approach  to  God 
through  the  priest,  who  is  the  Divine  agent  of 
the  Church.  No  penitence,  no  faith,  no  prayers, 
can  avail  before  God,  until  you  come  to  the 
confessional,  and  from  that  medium,  divinely 
appointed  and  authorized,  receive  not  merely  a 
declaration  or  announcement  of  pardon  on  the 
condition  of  repentance  and  faith,  but  that  for- 
o-iveness  is  actually  conveyed  and  received  at  the 
moment  of  pronouncing  it.  Hence,  no  matter 
how  sincerely  penitent  an  individual  may  be,  his 
sins  are  not  forgiven  by  God  until  the  priest 
on  earth  has  pronounced  that  forgiveness  over 
him  ! 

The  evangelical  Church  holds  to  no  such 
priesdy  mediating  view  as  this.  She  has  77iin- 
istcrs,  preachers,  bishops  (which  means  shep- 
herds), steivards,  ruessenoers,  but  she  has  no 
priests  ;  neither  has  the  New  Testament.     God 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  5- 

has  not  bound  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  any 
other  grace,  to  the  official  act  of  a  man.  The 
passages  of  Scripture  which  are  adduced  by 
the  Church  of  Rome  to  prove  the  opposite  are 
a  monstrous  as  well  as  preposterous  perversion 
of  their  meaning.  They  are  Matt.  xvi.  19  and 
Matt,  xviii.  18.  The  first  is  the  saying  of  Christ 
to  Peter:  "And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  bind  0.1  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  The  other 
confers  the  same  power,  as  the  context  shows, 
upon  all  Christians.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a 
priestly  power  conferred  upon  a  special  class  of 
men  as  ministers.  This  is  usually  called  the 
"power  of  the  keys;"  and  the  Roman  Church, 
and  very  High  Church  people  elsewhere,  wish 
to  prove  from  these  passages — what?  That 
every  preacher  is  not  only  a  priest,  but  that  he 
also  stands  on  an  equality  with  the  Apostles, 
who  were  miraculously  chosen,  and  endowed 
with  extraordinary,  miraculous  gifts  and  powers 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  founding  of  the 
Christian  Church.  These  miraculous  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  says  the  able  Church  historian 
Dr.  Ebrard,  were  necessary  for  \h^  founding  of 
the  Church,  but  not  necessary  for  its  further 
continuance,  such  as  the  power  of  the  keys,  a 

6*  K 


66  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

gift  peculiar  to  the  Apostles  and  their  immediate 
assistants,  exercised  in  prophetic  illumination 
correlative  with  the  jr/^^/^/ communication  of  the 
Spirit  (John  xx.  22),  and,  therefore,  uncondition- 
ally valid  and  miraculous"  (John  xx.  23.  Com- 
pare Acts  V.  5  and  10;  i  Cor.  v.  3,  etc.).  So, 
too,  they  had  the  extraordinary  gift  of  "  speak- 
ing with  tongues,"  healing  the  sick,  prophecy, 
and  raising  the  dead.  It  is  true,  as  Ebrard 
also  says,  that  the  Apostles  did  not  exclusively 
possess  these  gifts,  but  they  exclusively  were 
able  to  impart  thevi  to  others  (Acts  viii.  15,  16), 
and  hence  we  read  of  those  cfifts  as  beine  in 
existence  in  the  apostolic  period,  and  in  the 
period  immediately  following,  but  after  that  they 
cease.  According  to  the  second  passage  quoted 
(Matt,  xviii.  18),  it  Is  to  be  observed  that  Christ 
accords  the  power  of  the  keys  to  all  of  His  dis- 
ciples, and  with  them  to  the  Church  generally, 
"or  rather,"  says  Dr.  Lange,  "to  the  Church 
along  with  the  disciples."  For  in  verse  17  He 
lays  down  the  rule  for  the  conduct  of  the  Church, 
and  verse  18  shows  that  the  Church  is  warranted 
in  this  conduct. 

Now  let  us  see  what  our  Catechism  teaches 
on  this  subject.  Does  it  teach  that  the  minister 
has  priestly  powers  lodged  In  him  by  virtue  of 
his  office,  to  bind  or  loose,  to  open  or  shut  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ? 


MER  CERSB  URG    THRO  LOG  V. 


67 


^'^  Quest.  83.  What  are  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ? 

'■'Alls.  The  preaching  of  the  Holy  Gospel  and 
Christian  discipline,  or  the  excommunication 
out  of  the  Christian  Church ;  by  these  two  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  opened  to  believers  and 
shut  atrainst  unbelievers. 

''Quest.  84.  How  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
opened  and  shut  by  the  preaching  of  the  Holy 
Gospel  ? 

"■Ans.  Thus :  when,  according  to  the  com- 
mand of  Christ,  it  is  declared  and  publicly  testi- 
fied to  all  and  every  believer,  that  luhencver  they 
receive  the  promise  of  the  gospel  by  a  t^^ite  faith, 
all  their  sins  are  really  forgiven  thein  of  God, 
for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merits  ;  and,  on  the  con- 
trary, when  it  is  declared  and  testified  to  all 
unbelievers,  and  such  as  do  not  sincerely  repent, 
that  they  stand  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God 
and  eternal  condemnation,  so  long  as  they  are 
unconverted ;  according  to  which  testimony  of 
the  gospel  God  will  judge  them,  both  in  this 
and  the  life  to  come." 

And  then  in  the  85th  Answer  it  is  explained 
hoiv  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  shut  and  opened 
by  Christian  discipline,  declaring  that  those  who 
walk  disorderly,  and  who  return  not  to  duty 
after  being  admonished  by  the  Church,  shall  be 
forbidden  the  use  of  the  sacraments,  "  whereby 
they  are  excluded  from  the  Christian  Church, 
and  by  God  Himself  from  the  kingdom  of 
Christ." 


68  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

No  allusion  here,  nothing  that  looks  like 
"  priestly  j^owers,"  by  virtue  of  which  sins  are 
remitted  or  retained  Ijy  the  priest.  The  "preach- 
ing of  the  gospel,"  and  the  exercise  of  "  Chris- 
tian discipline,"  which  last  is  to  be  exercised 
by  the  Church,  or  those  "who are  thereunto  ap- 
pointed by  the  Church." 

Dr.  F.  W.  Krummacher,  who  is  acknowledged 
as  good  Reformed  authority,  and  whom  our 
Church  unanimously  called  to  fill  a  theological 
professorship  in  1843,  but  which  he  declined, 
says,  in  his  Sabbath  Glocke  (Sabbath  Chimes), 
on  John  xx.  22,  23  : 

"  God  has  not  given  the  power  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin  out  of  His  own  hand,  but  has  retained 
its  absolution  to  Hwiself.  But  I  hear  some  one 
object  by  saying,  *  But  does  it  not  say  here, 
Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit  ?'  All  very  true. 
But  in  the  sense  of:  In  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  God,  after  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
testified  that  this  or  that  person  who  seeks  the 
forgiveness  of  his  sins  is  in  such  a  state  of 
mind,  upon  whom  God,  according  to  His  word, 
will  seal  forgiveness  unto  him.  To  a  spiritually 
dead  preacher  God  gives  no  such  prerogative. 
A  stranger  to  his  own  heart,  he  is  totally  dis- 
qualified to  judge  the  innermost  state  of  others. 
What  would  it  amount  to,  though  he  should  say 
ten  or  a  hundred  times.  Thy  sins  are  remitted 
or  not  remitted  ?  His  words  would  drive  to  the 
four    winds    of   heaven   without    meaning   and 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


69 


without  effect,  because  it  is  without  the  higher 
sanction.  In  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is 
a  kingdom  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  things  do  not 
proceed  in  this  mechanical  style,  but  all  His 
operations  proceed  through  well-chosen  organs. 
The  naked  office  in  such  case  is  not  the  channel 
of  Divine  powers.  It  is  through  sanctified  per- 
sonalities tliat  the  water  of  life  flows.  Just 
suppose,  on  the  one  hand,  an  unenlightened,  un- 
holy, and  God-forsaken  bishop,  and  on  the  other 
hand  a  private  Christian  or  layman  like  the 
godly  Tersteegen,  or  Jung-Stilling,  or  Baron  von 
Kottwitz,'-' — to  whom  among  these  would  you 
believe  yourselves  directed  by  God  if  you  felt 
the  need  of  some  human  counsel  or  instruction, 
when  seeking  the  consolations  of  the  grace  of 
God  for  your  souls  ?  You  would  not  require 
time  for  consideration,  but  as  with  one  voice 
you  would  say  most  decidedly,  that  the  Ananias 
that  you  would  seek  should  be  one  of  the  three 
last-named  persons.  I  should  do  the  same,  and 
would  allow  the  first-named,  notwithstanding  his 
high-sounding  title  and  official  dignity,  to  stand 
aside.  For  it  remains  forever  true  that  the 
authority  to  forgive  and  retain  sin  is  not  an 
exclusive  authority  which  is  bound  to  the  office, 
but  is  an  authority  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  not  a 
prerogative  only  of  the  ministerial  vocation,  but 
to  those  of  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers. 
That  pastor  who  is  born  of  God  possesses  it, 
and  will  exercise  it  in  his  churchly  forms.  But 
no  less  he,  though  he  may  be  among  the  lowly 

*  Well-known  and  devout  laymen  and  autliors  in  Germany. — S. 


JO 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


members  of  the  congregation,  if  there  has  been 
given  him  the  gift  of  '  discerning  the  spirits,' 
and  he  exercises  that  gift  in  his  humble  way 
with  equal  authority  and  with  equal  effect."''' 

As  this  is  a  vital  question  to  us  as  Protes- 
tants, inasmuch  as  the  whole  Romish  system  is 
founded  upon  their  sacerdotal  priesthood,  culmi- 
nating in  the  powers  of  the  Pope,  and  latterly 
of  Papal  Infallibility,  which  last  is  but  the  pin- 
nacle to  the  whole  structure,  let  us  consult  a 
few  more  authorities, — authorities  not  merely 
of  representative  men,  but  official  Reformed 
Church  authorities,  to  which,  as  ministers  and 
members,  we  are  obliged  to  pay  deference. 

The  Second  Helvetic  (Swiss)  Confession 
stands  among  the  very  first  of  the  standards 
of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  alongside  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  itself  The  great  and 
good  Bullinger  drew  it  up.     It  has  the  signa- 

*  It  should  perhaps  be  remarked  that  Krummacher  guards  himself 
well  in  all  he  says,  and  hence  we  read  in  preceding  paragraphs  :  "  The 
Evangelical  ministry  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  which  has  great  prom- 
ises. But  the  office  does  not  impart  to  him  who  is  clothed  with  it  a 
mediatiug  function  in  any  sense  between  Christ  and  the  Church.  .  .  . 
In  the  next  place,  the  office,  which  seeks  the  man  but  does  not  make 
him,  imparts  to  its  bearer  none  of  those  independent  Divine  powers 
apart  from  his  personal  spiritual  state  so  far  as  regards  the  qualifica- 
tion to  minister  in  the  things  of  the  Spirit  effectively.  By  this  it  is  not 
denied  that  in  the  Church  certain  churchly  offices  miy  be  firmly  bound 
to  the  office,  and  that  the  Sacraments,  for  instance,  as  well  as  lessei 
services,  still  remain  what  they  are,  even  though  an  unworthy  ministei 
should  administer  them." 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  71 

til  res  of  approbation  by  delegates  from  the 
Churches  of  England,  Germany,  Switzerland, 
Scotland,  France,  Holland,  Poland,  and  Hun- 
gary. Its  date  is  1566,  three  years  after  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  was  published.  The  pious 
Elector  Frederick  the  Third  specially  requested 
Bullinger  to  publish  this  Confession  of  Faith,  so 
well  was  he  pleased  with  it,  and  gave  as  a 
reason  for  the  request,  that  it  would  go  to  prove 
that  it  was  in  accord  with  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism, and  hence  would  show  the  agreement 
which  existed  in  different  countries  in  regard  to 
Reformed  doctrines. 

Now,  what  does  it  teach  on  the  Universal 
Priesthood  of  Believer's  ? 

"All  (Christians)  are  indeed  by  the  Apostle 
called  priests  (ye  are  kings  and  priests  unto 
God),  but  not  in  respect  to  their  office,  but 
because  all  believers  through  Christ  can,  as 
kings  and  priests,  bring  spiritual  sacrifices  to 
God."  Again:  "The  priesthood  and  ministry 
are  very  different  from  each  other.  The  former 
(the  priesthood)  is  common  to  all  Christians,  as 
already  said :  the  latter  is  not  so.  .  .  .  For  the 
new  covenant  there  is  no  more,  as  in  the  old,  a 
priesthood  which  has  an  external  anointing, 
holy  vestments,  and  manifold  ceremonies,  which 
were  once  types  of  Christ.  All  these  things 
hath  He  abolished  by  His  coming,  the  types 
being  fulfilled.  He  alone  remains  Priest  to  all 
eternity ;  and  in  order  that  we  may  not  detract 


72 


MERCERSB URG    THEOLOG Y. 


from  Him  anything,  we  do  not  give  the  name 
priest  to  any  minister  in  the  Church." 

"  Of  the  Confession  of  Sin.  We  heartily 
approve  of  the  general  open  confession  of  sin 
in  the  Church;  .  .  .  for  it  agrees  with  Scripture. 

"  Of  the  Power  and  Duty  of  the  Ministry. 
Concerning  their  power,  some  have  very  zeal- 
ously contended  and  wished  to  subordinate 
everything  on  earth  to  their  control ;  yet  con- 
trary to  the  command  of  the  Lord,  who  forbids 
all  lordship  to  His  followers,  and  rather  com- 
mands humility. 

"  Of  the  Office  of  the  Keys.  Concerning 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  by 
the  Lord  were  committed  to  the  Apostles,  aston- 
ishing things  have  been  spoken,  and  out  of  them 
have  been  forged  swords,  lances,  sceptres,  and 
crowns ;  and  full  power  over  the  greatest  em- 
pires, yea,  even  over  souls  and  bodies,  has  been 
drawn  from  it.  .  .  .  All  properly-called  preach- 
ers have  and  exercise  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  when  they  pi^oclaim  the  gospel,  namely, 
when  they  teach,  exhort,  comfort,  admonish,  and 
keep  in  discipline  the  people  entrusted  to  their 
fidelity.  .  .  .  They  therefore  use  these  keys 
when  they  preach  repentance  and  faith.  Thus 
do  they  reconcile  us  to  God.  Thus  do  they  7'emit 
sin,  and  thus  unlock  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and 
lead  believers  into  it." 

This  language  speaks  for  itself.  No  priest- 
hood in  the  Romish  sense ;  no  private  confes- 
sional ;  no  priestly  absolution  ;  but,  on  the  con- 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  70 

trary,  a  most  decided  protest  against  any  and 
every  thing  of  the  sort. 

Luther  s  View.  Let  us  now  give  attention  to 
only  a  few  out  of  numerous  expressions  from 
this  genial,  outspoken  German  Reformer : 

"  Those  who  preside  over  the  people  in  the 
Word  and  Sacraments  may  and  shall  not  be 
called  priests.  That  they  are  so  called,  how- 
ever, is  either  done  in  heathen  fashion,  or  is  a 
remnant  of  the  Jews'  laws,  and  afterwards  was 
accepted  with  great  damage  to  the  Church. 
But  according  to  the  evangelical  Scriptures 
they  had  better  be  called  ministers  (servants), 
deacons,  bishops,  stewards,  or  presbyters." 

Dr.  NitzscJi,  the  Patriarch  of  Evangelical 
Protestantism  in  Germany,  as  he  has  been 
called,  in  his  reply  to  the  able  but  sophistical 
Roman  Catholic,  Moehler,  after  stating  that 
Christ  gave  gifts  to  Apostles,  Evangelists, 
Prophets,  etc.,  in  the  founding  of  His  Church, 
adds : 

"  But  that  in  or  by  the  side  of  them  he  placed 
priests,  we  do  not  find." 

He  then  proceeds  to  explain  the  heaven-wide 
difference  between  the  ministry  in  the  gospel 
sense  and  the  priestJwod  in  the  Romish  sense, 
and  says  that  the  Apostle  Peter  saw  the  priest- 
hood (in  the  New  Testament  sense)  in  the  con- 
gregation, in  the  believers,  as  such,  and  then 
7 


74 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


quotes  with  approbation  the  declaration  of  an- 
other, "  that  In  the  New  Testament  there  Is  no 
priesthood  of  this  sort"  (In  the  sacerdotal  or 
Roman  Catholic  sense). 

Dr.  Ebrard,  an  eminent  living  theologian 
also,  and  Reformed,  the  author  of  numerous 
works,  has  in  certain  quarters  been  quoted 
as  favoring  certain  views  which  (he  says)  he 
does  not  hold.  Here  Is  what  he  says  on  the 
subject  before  us : 

"  The  minister  Is  only  one  of  the  congrega- 
tion, himself  a  sinner,  who  needs  forgiveness 
and  sanctification,  and  this  in  itself  cuts  off  a 
particular  priesthood.  For  the  sake  of  order, 
and  by  Christ's  appointment,  there  is  an  office 
of  the  ministry,  but  no  priesthood.  .  .  .  When 
the  minister  leads  in  prayer,  he  does  not  pray 
as  a  priest  for  the  congregation,  but  as  a  pastor 
with  them.'' 

And  thus  we  might  go  on  quoting  page  after 
page  from  scores  of  Reformed,  Lutheran,  and 
Evangelical  (the  United)  Church  of  Germany, 
France,  Holland,  and  Switzerland, — from  Pal- 
mer, Tholuck,  Julius  Miiller,  Schroder,  Von 
Hoffmann,  the  Gerlachs,  and  their  like.  But  it 
Is  needless.  The  voice  of  the  Protestant 
Church  for  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  Is 
unanimous  on  this  point.  It  has  ever  been 
held   that  just  this  subject  of  the   priesthood 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY,  >rc 

was  the  starting-point  of  the  gradual  divergence 
from  the  simpHcity  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  car- 
rying with  it  the  manifold  human  devices  and 
producing  the  fearful  corruptions  of  the  Roman 
Church,  This  has  ever  been  admitted  by  some 
theologians  of  the  milder  or  more  moderate 
type  in  this  Church,  such  as  Bishop  Sailer  and 
others. 


WHAT    DOES    THE     MERCERSBURG-LANCASTER 
THEOLOGY   TEACH  ? 

Having  thus  shown  what  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics teach  in  regard  to  the  priesthood,  and  then 
proved  from  the  Catechism,  and  similar  Re- 
formed Confessions,  and  the  best  representative 
men  of  the  evangelical  Church,  that  the  Prot- 
estant Church  from  the  start  held  an  entirely 
different  view,  grounded  upon  the  unadulter- 
ated word  of  God,  we  shall  now  attempt  to 
show — 

That  the  new  theory  taught  at  Mercersburg 
and  Lancaster  differs  widely  and  essentially 
from  the  Reformed  doctrine,  and  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  general  Protestant  Church. 

It  is  not  in  a  spirit  of  self-sufficiency,  much 
less  with  a  desire  to  find  fault  needlessly,  that 
this  task  is  undertaken.  Would  to  God  there 
were    no    cause    for    such    unwelcome    task ! 


76 


MER  CERSB  URG    THRO  LOG  Y. 


Firmly  and  conscientiously  believing-  that  there 
is  such  cause,  we  venture  to  perform  the  task, 
in  this  as  in  the  preceding  points. 

We  say,  then,  that  the  new  theory  has  taught 
and  is  teaching  in  the  Mc7'ccrshirg  Review,  in 
the  07'der  of  Worship  (the  Liturgy),  in  the  Mes- 
senger, as  well  as  in  other  ways,  views  on  the 
priesthood  which  are  greatly  at  variance  with 
the  universal  doctrines  of  evano-elical  Protes- 
tantism,  and  therefore  at  variance  also  with  the 
standards  and  faith  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
These  new  teachings  coincide  with  a  small 
fraction  of  ultra-Lutherans  in  Germany,  and 
with  the  Puseyite  or  High  Church  party  in  the 
English  (Episcopal)  Church,  whose  views,  again, 
trench  so  closely  on  Roman  Catholic  ground 
that  the  division-line  is  hardly  perceptible. 

Let  us  then  specify  more  particularly,  by  way 
of  answering  the  question.  What  does  Mercers- 
burg-Lancaster  teach  on  the  subject  in  hand  ? 

We  reply,  it  teaches  that — 

"The  Church  is  the  actual  body  of  Christ, 
and  those  who  do  not  realize  that,  as  His  body, 
it  possesses  all  the  authority  which  of  rioht 
belongs  to  Him,  of  course  do  not  realize  their 
duty  to  be  obedient  unto  the  Church  as  unto 
Christ.  They  are  unable  to  comprehend  that 
in  the  Church  are  now  lodged  the  prerogative 
of  teaching,  the  priestly  functions  of  the  Saviour, 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  77 

and  also  His  kingly  functions,  and  must  continue 
there  in  virtue  of  His  appointment." 

This  extract  is  from  the  Report  on  the  State 
of  Religion  adopted  by  the  Synod  in  Danville, 
held  in  1869.  It  was  drawn  up  by  its  chairman, 
the  Rev.  Geo.  D.  Wolff,  who  has  since  become 
a  convert  to  Rome.  The  Synod,  by  the  adop- 
tion of  that  report,  made  it  its  own  in  an  official 
way.  We  will  yet  remark  that  the  foregoing 
extract  is  introduced  in  these  words : 

"The  spirit  of  infidelity  afflicts  many  members 
of  our  Church,  and  thus  weakens  and  hinders 
her.  .  .  .  This  spirit  of  unbelief  is  associated 
with  a  spirit  of  insubordination." 

And  then,  after  the  extract  before  given,  the 
following  harsh  words  follow : 

"  Hence  these  deluded  though  often  sincere 
persons  imagine  that  they  are  right  in  making 
their  own  judgments  a  law  to  themselves ;  and 
they  frequently  rebel  against  the  authority  of 
those  who,  by  Divine,  not  human  appointment, 
have  the  rule  over  them,  not  understanding  that 
in  so  doing  they  are  resisting  lawful  authority, 
rending  the  '  body  of  Christ,'  breaking  the  unity 
of  the  Spirit,  and  following  him  who  is  the  Anti- 
christ, '  the  father  of  lies.'  " 

Let  any  one  now  compare  these  extracts  in 
regard  to  "  priestly  functions"  and  what  is  falsely 
called  "Scriptural    truth"   in    reference    to   the 

7* 


78  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

Church  possessing  all  the  authority  which  be- 
longs to  Christ,  and  then  say  if  such  a  view  of 
the  priesthood  and  Church  authority  is  a  whit 
behind  that  of  the  Roman  Church.  And  then, 
too,  the  arrogant  and  denunciatory  way  in  which 
all  this  is  spoken  savors  of  the  very  essence  of 
a  Pope's  fulmination.  Those  who  hold,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  the  Reformed  view,  to  Protestant 
doctrine,  to  gospel  teaching,  are  charged  with 
the  "spirit  of  infidelity,"  are  said  to  be  "deluded," 
make  their  own  judgments  a  law  to  themselves, 
rebel  against  lawful  authority  because  they 
obey  not  the  authority  of  what  is  called  Divine 
appointment,  designate  the  Church  as  repre- 
sented by  the  Synod  the  "  actual  body  of  Christ," 
and  charge  those  who  do  not  believe  this  with 
breaking  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  and  "  following 
him  who  is  the  Antichrist,  the  father  of  lies !" 
Verily,  Dr.  Dorner  is  right  when  he  says  in  his 
criticism  of  the  new  theory,  of  which  the  fore- 
going is  an  advanced  specimen,  that  such  arbi- 
trary heaping  of  all  Church  powers  upon  the 
ministerial  office,  and  thus  robbing  the  laity  of 
their  proper  rights,  "  sets  eveiy  minister  higher 
than  the  Church  of  Rome  sets  her  bishops T  In  an 
article  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Gerhart  in  the  Mer- 
cer sburg  Review  for  October,  1867,  he  says  of  the 
prevailing  evangelical  system, — 

"This  system  admits   that  the  minister  is  a 


MER CERSB UR G    THE OLOGY. 


79 


teacher  of  Divine  truth,  and  in  some  sense  a 
ruler,  but  denies  that  he  is  a  priest,  nor  does  he 
perform  any  functions  which  are  Divine  acts. 
The  success  of  his  labors  depends  entirely  upon 
the  degree  of  his  faith  and  piety,  his  talents  and 
scholarship,  his  eloquence  and  tact,  and  upon 
the  measure  of  heavenly  blessings  with  which 
God  may  favor  his  preaching  of  the  gospel,  but 
not  on  the  Divine  powers  of  his  office,  nor  on 
his  authority  to  administer  the  sacraments  and 
to  remit  or  retain  .sin  in  the  sense  of  Christ's 
words  (John  xx.  23)."    [Appendix  D.] 

In  the  same  way  Dr.  Nevin,  in  his  pamphlet 
on  the  liturgical  question,  defends  the  unusual 
and  un-Reformed  language  in  the  ordination 
service  in  the  Liturgy,  where  the  office  is  in- 
vested with  the  character  of  a  sacrament  "  flow- 
ing directly  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
as  the  fruit  of  His  resurrection  and  triumphant 
ascension  into  heaven,  and  being  designed  by 
Him  to  carry  forward  the  purpose  of  His  grace 
on  earth  in  the  salvation  of  men  by  the  Outre h  to 
the  end  of  time."  In  the  ordination  service  we 
read, — 

"The  first  ministers  were  apostles  who  were 
called  and  commissioned  immediately  by  Christ 
Himself.  They,  in  turn,  ordained  .  .  .  other 
suitable  men  as  pastors,  .  .  .  and  these  again 
in  the  same  way  appointed  others  to  carry  on- 
ward and  forward  still  the  true  succession  of 
this  office  ;  which,  being  regularly  transmitted  in 


So  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

this  way  from  age  to  ag-e  in  the  Christian  Church, 
has  come  down  finally  to  our  time.  The  solem- 
nity of  ordination,  through  which  this  transmis- 
sion fiows,  is  not  merely  an  impressive  ceremony, 
.  .  .  but  it  is  to  be  considered  rather  as  their 
actual  investiture  zuith  the  very  power  of  the  office 
itself, ^  the  sacramental  seal  of  their  heavenly  com- 
mission, and  a  symbolical  assurance  from  on  high 
that  their  consecration  to  the  service  of  Christ 
is  accepted,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will  most 
certainly  be  with  them  in  the  faithful  discharge 
of  their  official  labors.  They  are  appointed  to 
.  .  .  offer  up  before  Him  the  prayers  of  His 
people.  .  .  .  They  are  also  charged  with  tJie 
goveimment  of  the  ChurcJi,  and  with  the  proper 
use  of  its  discipline  in  the  way  of  censure  and 
absohition  according  to  that  awfully  mysterious 
word  in  Matt.  xvi.  i8."  [Nothing  is  said  of 
elders,  only  they,  the  ministers.] 

In  the  same  service  the  minister  before  ordi- 
nation is  asked, — 

"  Are  you  truly  persuaded  in  your  heart  that 
you  are  called  of  God  to  the  office  of  the  holy 
ministry,  and  do  you  desire  and  expect  to  re- 
ceive, through  the  laying  on  of  our  hands,  the 
'gifts  and  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  shall 
enable  you  to  fulfill  this  heavenly  commission 
and  trust?" 

This  is  sufficiently  plain,  surely.  "Through 
the  laying  on  of  our  hands  the  gifts  and  grace  of 
the  Holy  Ghost"  are  received  by  him  who  is  to 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  gi 

be  ordained.  We  have,  we  think,  in  preceding 
pages  given  the  proof  that  the  evangehcal  Prot- 
estant Church  knows  nothing  and  will  know 
nothinof  of  such  mechanism.  And  as  for  the 
ordinary  gifts  and  grac^i'  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we 
hold  again,  with  the  Protestant  Church,  that  if 
the  person  to  be  ordained  does  not  possess 
these  before  he  is  ordained  he  will  not  possess 
them  afterwards.  Ordination  is  not  a  channel 
for  the  giving  or  imparting  of  supernatural  and 
magical  powers,  but  a  confirmation  (Bestatigung) 
of  the  call  to  the  ministerial  office.  All  the  Re- 
formed Confessions  which  touch  upon  the  sub- 
ject teach  nothing  else.  The  words  of  the  first 
Helvetic  Coiifession,  as  it  is  the  briefest,  may 
stand  here  as  an  example.  After  stating  that 
this  office  should  not  be  intrusted  to  any  that 
are  not  found  by  the  proper  authorities  to  be 
well  acquainted  with  the  word  of  God  and  to 
be  of  a  pure  life  and  full  of  zeal  for  the  cause 
and  honor  of  Christ,  it  adds, — 

"  Since  this  is  a  real  Divine  call,  it  is  of  right 
confirmed  by  the  Church  [Gc?neine),  by  the  lay- 
inof  on  of  hands  of  a  minister." 

To  say  that  this  view  of  the  ministerial  office 
would  bring  the  Church  down  to  the  level  of  a 
"  temperance  society"  is  a  monstrous  perversion, 
and  only  confirms  the  language  of  the  learned 


82  MERCERS  BURG    THEOLOGY. 

Dr.  Dorner,  that  "unless  we  are  willing-  to 
adopt  Romish  tenets  we  must  be  content  to 
hold  that  the  organic  communion  which  flows 
from  Christ  cannot  be  dependent  upon  the  out- 
ward rite  of  a  sacramental  ordination,  and  does 
not  first  receive  from  that  its  reality  and  his- 
torical character." 

"  It  will  hardly  be  denied,"  says  the  same  Dr. 
Dorner,  "  that  these  tenets  on  ordination  go 
far  beyond  the  bounds  of  those  which  are  evan- 
gelical, and  must  lead  to  the  Hierarchical"  (the 
High  Church  or  else  the  Romish  system). 

This  theory  of  the  special  priesthood,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  affects  more  or  less  every 
theological  point  brought  out  in  the  Liturgy ;  and 
it  was  intended  to  do  so. 

Take  the  form  of  Confirmation,  for  instance. 
Although  it  is  well  known  that  confirmation  was 
not  in  use  for  a  long  time  after  the  Reformation, 
neither  by  Luther,  Zwingle,  Calvin,  nor  their 
successors,  yet  it  has  for  at  least  two  centuries 
been  found  a  wise  and  wholesome  method,  when 
properly  guarded,  of  receiving  persons  into  full 
communion  with  the  Church.  But  the  form  of 
confirmation  in  the  new  Liturgy  foists  into  that 
service  an  entirely  new  view.  It  describes  it 
as  the  completion  of  baptism  (pp.  203  and  206), 
"just  as  the  Romish  Church  does,"  says  Dor- 
ner,   "at    the    expense    of  baptism,  as    if  the 


MER  CERSB  UR G    THEOL  O G  V. 


83 


Apostles  had  'confirmed  by  laying  on  of  hands' 
all  the  adults  whom  they  baptized."  (See  Ap- 
pendix E.) 

CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION. 

The  pecuYiar  J>rtes//)/  theory  comes,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  into  view  on  confession  and  absolution. 
The  wording  of  it  (p.  10)  might  be  allowed  to 
stand,  but,  taking  it  in  connection  with  the  theory 
of  the  priesthood  as  held  and  as  it  must  be 
held  to  rule  here  with  the  new  theory,  it  follows 
that  the  remission  of  sin  is  bound  to  the  formal 
pronouncement  of  it  by  the  priest.  When  Dr. 
Dorner  referred  to  this  point  by  saying  that 
forgiveness  of  sin  in  the  view  of  Dr.  Nevin 
was  "  bound  to  the  outward  organization  and 
forms  of  the  Church,"  and  that  therefore  "this 
cardinal  point  cuts  off  individual  Christians  from 
direct  communication  with  God  by  introducing 
a  new  priesthood,"  Dr.  Nevin,  in  a  harsh  and — 
we  cannot  help  saying — most  sophistical  way, 
defends  the  position,  and  charges  those  who 
hold  a  different  view  with  regarding  the  Church 
as  nothing  more  nor  higher  than  a  "  civil  corpo- 
ration." But  this  is  not  correct.  The  charge 
is  aimed  at  an  imaginary  opponent,  in  the  Re- 
formed Church  at  least^  and  in  fact  in  all  evan- 
gelical Churches.  How  is  it,  we  may  ask  ?  do 
ministers   of  the   Reformed,  the   Presbyterian, 


84  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

the  Lutheran,  the  Episcopal  denominations — do 
Dr.  Dorner,  Prof.  J.  H.  Klein,  Dr.  Hodge,  Dr. 
W.  A.  Muhlenberg,  Dr.  Sprecher — "  blaspheme 
the  gospel,"  and  are  they  "  infidels,"  as  it  is  said 
those  are  who  do  not  hold  these  high-priestly 
views  in  regard  to  the  functions  of  the  Church 
and  her  ministers  ?  And  because  they  do  not 
believe  this,  must  they  therefore  be  read  out  of 
the  pale  of  Christ's  Church  and  handed  over 
to  Satan  ?  Because  they  believe,  with  evangelical 
Christendom,  that  the  theory  of  a  specific  priest- 
hood is  a  falsehood,  do  they  therefore  deserve 
the  charge  of  believing  the  Church  to  be  nothing 
higrher  than  an  Odd-Fellows'  lodee  or  a  tem- 
perance  society,  as  our  ears  are  accustomed  to 
hear  from  every  zealous  advocate  of  the  new 
theory  until  the  people  tire  of  the  threadbare 
formulary  ? 

Dr.  Nevin  asks  (Vindic,  p.  83),  when  the  min- 
ister says  that  by  the  authority  and  in  the  name 
of  Christ  "your  sins  are  forgiven  you,"  whether 
this  implies  "  that  the  minister  himself  pretends 
to  forgive  sins ;"  and  then  calls  this  "  spiritual- 
istic prudery  of  the  most  captious  sort."  ^ 

But  we  are  not  aware  that  such  a  charge  has 
ever  been  made  in  this  form.  The  Romish 
priest,  nay,  the  immaculate  and  infallible  Pope 
of  Rome  himself,  does  not  pretend  to  forgive 
sin   by  his  own  authority.      But  the  charge  is 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


85 


this,  that  by  virtue  of  the  Divine  powers  vested 
in  and  conferred  upon  the  minister  (priest),  it 
is  claimed  that  there  can  be  no  assurance  of  the 
pardon  of  sin,  imless  it  is  declared  and  pronoimccd 
by  a  minister  {priest).  That  is  the  point.  And 
we  say  that  is  just  what  the  evangeHcal  Church 
of  all  times  and  in  all  countries  has  denied,  and 
on  account  of  which  thousands  have  been  put 
to  the  rack,  into  prisons,  and  to  the  stake.  (See 
Appendix  F.) 

To  show  still  more  clearly  the  direct,  unmis- 
takable teachings  of  the  new-theory  brethren 
on  this  subject,  read  the  following : 

"A  sinner  may  be  penitent  for  his  sins,  but 
until  he  has  received  baptism,  as  God's  act  of 
remission  to  him,  he  has  no  true  assurance  of 
remission ;  and  when,  after  baptism,  he  sins 
through  infirmity,  he  cannot  be  sure  of  pardon 
till  his  absolution  is  spoken,  signed,  and  sealed 
by  Christ,  by  means  of  a  Divine  act,  through  the 
Church."      {Mercersbitrg  Review,  1868,  p.  31.) 

And  the  following  in  the  Messenger,  by  one  of 
the  regular  official  contributors  to  that  paper,  ac- 
knowledged to  be  Dr.  D.  Cans  (May  15,  1872)  : 

"That  the  power  to  absolve  from  sin  was 
given  to  the  Apostles,  there  are  few  who  will 
call  in  question.  ...  It  was  a  great  power,  but 
it  rested  on  a  great  gift,  even  the  sovereign  and 
infallible  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

8 


S6  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

"  As  forming  a  part  of  the  gospel  of  our  Lord, 
this  power  necessarily  descends  in  the  Church 
from  age  to  age.  [This  is  assertion,  but  not 
proof]  ....  Every  true  minister  now  .  .  . 
must  possess  the  same  authority.  .  .  .  How 
does  this  differ  from  the  office  of  absolution 
.  .  .  ?  In  the  way  of  principle  there  is  no 
difference. 

**  Why  should  any  hesitate  to  believe  all  this, 
if  one  can  steadily  acknowledge  the  fact  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  abidingly  in  the  Church  ?  Surely 
He  is  as  competent  now  to  qualify  His  ministers 
for  the  proper  discharge  of  this  duty  as  He  was 
when  first  given." 

OF    PURGATORY. 

It  would  not  be  fair  to  charge  the  believers 
of  the  new  theory  that  they  hold  to  or  teach 
purgatory  ;  and  yet  from  the  way  in  which  some 
of  them  speak  and  write  on  the  subject  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  there  is  some  uncertainty  in  their 
minds  about  the  subject.  Thus,  we  read  in  the 
Mercersbtcrg  Reviezv,  vol.  iv.  p.  204 : 

"  It  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  article  of  purga- 
tory, so  far  as  the  primary  conception  of  it  is 
concerned,  was  in  full  vogue  in  the  days  of 
Augustine  and  Chrysostom  ;  and  that  the  faith 
of  that  period  was  accordingly  in  full  contradic- 
tion here,  as  well  as  at  other  points  not  a  few, 
to  the  whole  system  of  modern  Protestantism, 
whether  Anglican  or  Puritan." 


MER CERSB URG    THEOLOG  Y. 


^7 


That  is  all  so ;  but  does  this  not  rather  go  to 
show  how  deep  the  corruption  in  that  period 
already  was,  and  how  unsafe  it  is,  therefore,  to 
refer  so  confidently  to  the  "  fathers"  on  all 
points  ?  And  when  we  know  from  some  funeral 
addresses,  as  we  do  know,  how  darkly,  shadowy, 
and  murkily  some  of  our  brethren  represent  the 
state  even  of  the  "  pious  dead,"  it  is  enough  to 
cast  a  gloom  over  the  mind,  and  to  cause  us 
to  ask,  Are  the  blessed  ones,  then,  doomed  to 
wander  up  and  down  for  ages  in  this  gloomy 
future?  No;  purgatory  is  not  taught,  at  least 
has  not  been  ;  but  such  a  passage  as  the  fore- 
going has  some  significance. 

Another  uncertain  sound.  In  vol.  iii.  p.  394  it 
is  said, — 

"  To  some  it  may  seem,  possibly,  that  putting 
die  matter  in  this  form  is  equivalent  to  a  full 
surrender  of  the  Church  question  in  favor  of 
Rome,  If  it  were  so,  we  ought  not  to  shrink, 
certainly,  from  the  confession  of  clear  and  open 
truth,  just  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  that  conse- 
quence." 

Suppose  I  should  say,  Putting  the  matter 
thus  and  so  might  seem  to  imply  that  I  am 
ready  to  surrender  the  question  in  favor  of 
Mormonisrn ;  and  I  should  then  ward  off  the 
opponent  by  saying,  Well,  if  it  does  lead  you 
to  embrace  that  system,  you  ought  not  to  shrink 


gg  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

from  the  confession  of  clear  and  open  truth,  no 
matter  about  the  consequence. 

Certainly  not,  if  it  is  the  truth,  God's  revealed 
truth.  But  the  very  fact  that  I  can  speak  in 
this  hypothetical  way  is  proof  clear  as  sunlight, 
either  that  objective  truth  is  not  yet  clearly 
seen  and  apprehended  by  myself,  or  (what  is 
still  worse)  that  I  am  insinuating  my  own  notions 
into  the  mind  of  another  for  the  purpose  of 
driving-  out  of  his  mind  his  belief, — a  belief 
which  to  him  is  perhaps  his  joy  and  bliss, — and 
yet  I  give  him  no  assurance  of  anything  that  is 
better,  nay,  only  leave  him  in  doubt.  Is  this 
not  cruel  ? 

So,  too,  Calvin  (of  whom  even  Lutheran  the- 
ologians of  Germany  speak  with  the  highest 
veneration),  Zwingle,  and  other  worthies  of  the 
Reformation  period,  are  frequently  spoken  of  in 
terms  of  reproach  for  holding  certain  doctrinal 
positions  which  do  not  square  with  the  "  subject- 
ivism" of  the  men  of  the  new  theory,  whilst  a 
Moehler  and  other  Romish  authors  are  lauded 
in  terms  that  cannot  fail  to  tell  us.  These  are 
the  men  for  us  ! 

Dr.  Nevin  speaks  of  Moehler  thus  :  "  One 
man  like  the  learned  and  pious  Moehler,  now 
with  God,  who  knows  how  to  admit  the  his- 
torical sienificance  of  the  Reformation,"  etc., 
and  then  passes  on  to  a  wholesale  detraction  of 


MER  CERSB  URG    THRO  LOG  Y. 


89 


Protestant  defenders.  We  have  nothing  to  say 
against  that  artful  Roman  champion  ;  but  when 
we  see  such  a  one  thus  carefully  lauded,  whilst 
Calvin  and  other  greater  and  better  men  are 
treated  with  sneers,  as  some  of  the  younger 
class  of  the  theorists  are  doing,  we  cannot  fail 
to  see  that  "  straws  show  which  way  the  wind 
blows,"  And  when  we  hear  some  of  these  same 
brethren  say  that  they  called  to  see  the  Romish 
bishop ,  of ,  whose  company  they  en- 
joyed so  very  much,  whilst  they  fail  to  pay  even 
their  compliments  to  brethren  of  their  own  com- 
munion in  the  same  place,  especially  if  they  are 
known  to  hold  the  "  old  views,"  are  these  not 
signs  of  some  significance  ? 

ALTAR    AND    SACRIFICE. 

Where  there  is  a  priest  and  a  priesthood  in 
the  sense  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  there 
must,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  be  an  altar 
and  victim,  or  a  sacrifice.  These  are  inseparable. 
They  are  joined  together  and  cannot  be  sun- 
dered. Take  one  of  these  away,  no  matter  which, 
and  you  take  all  three  away.  If  the  Christian 
Church  has  priests  in  the  sacerdotal  sense,  then 
she  must  have  a  victim,  something  to  be  offered 
as  a  sacrifice  in  that  sense.  And  if  she  has  such 
a  sacrifice,  as  the  Romish  Church  has  in  the 
mass,  then  she  must  have  an  altar  in  that  sense. 

8* 


QO  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

But  we  have  shown,  we  think,  by  irrefragable 
evidence  that  the  Reformed  Church,  yea,  the 
evangeUcal  Protestant  Church  at  large,  acknowl- 
edges no  such  priesthood.  Christ  is  her  only 
Priest,  and,  at  the  same  time,  her  only  Sacrifice. 
And  hence  she  also  acknowledo^es  no  altar  in 
any  priestly  or  sacerdotal  sense.  The  Romish 
Church  is  consistent  in  having  all  three,  because 
she  holds  to  the  mass,  the  so-called  "  unbloody 
sacrifice,"  in  her  service.  It  is  with  her  the 
"  holy  of  holies,"  the  innermost  sanctuary,  and 
in  her  altars  are  deposited  her  sacred  vessels, 
etc.,  as  emblematic  of  this.  Hence,  when  the 
priest  engages  in  the  services  of  the  mass  and 
in  certain  prayers,  he  turns  his  back  to  the 
people,  thus  facing  the  altar,  which  is  for  him 
the  inner  sanctuary,  and  makes  adoration  to  it 
by  bowing  and  crossing  himself  when  approach- 
ing or  passing  it.  The  altar  was  generally  ele- 
vated from  the  ground-floor;  hence  the  name 
alta  ara,  "  an  elevated  place." 

In  this  sacerdotal  sense,  as  applied  to  the 
new  or  Christian  dispensation,  the  name  never 
occurs.  It  is  used  only  figuratively,  spiritually, 
or  by  way  of  accommodation.  Altars  were 
usually  built  of  stone.  That  of  the  Jewish 
Tabcirnacle  was  called  the  "  brazen  altar,"  and 
it,  as  well  as  the  other  vessels,  seems  to  have 
been  made  chiefly  of  metal.     Everything  about 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  qj 

it,  as  indeed  all  the  Old  Testament  ceremonial 
worship,  was  a  type  and  symbol  of  the  future 
New  Testament  sacrifice,  of  which  it  was  a 
significant  prefigu ration.  Thus,  the  daily  offer- 
ings of  animal  sacrifices  on  the  altar,  the  smoke 
of  the  burning  flesh,  the  dark  cloud  mounting  up 
toward  heaven,  were,  as  Dr.  J.  W.  Nevin  says  in 
his  Biblical  Antiquities, — 

"  A  continual  remembrance  of  sin,  displaying 
in  lively  representation  its  awful  guilt  and  the 
consuming  wrath  of  heaven  which  it  deserves. 
.  .  .  'This  Brazen  Altar,'  to  use  the  words 
of  a  learned  and  holy  man,  '  was  a  type  of 
Christ  dying  to  make  atonement  for  our  sins.' 
The  luood  (the  inside  lining)  would  have  been 
consumed  by  the  fire  from  heaven,  if  it  had  not 
been  secured  by  the  brass  ;  nor  could  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  have  borne  the  wrath  of  God 
if  it  had  not  been  supported  by  a  Divine  power. 
Christ  sanctified  Himself  for  His  Church  as 
their  Altar  (John  xvii.  19),  and  by  His  media- 
tion sanctifies  the  daily  services  of  His  people, 
who  also  have  a  right  to  '  eat  at  this  Altar' 
(Heb.  xiii.  10),  for  they  serve  at  it  as  spiritual 
priests.  To  the  horns  of  this  Altar  (Lev.  iv. 
30,  xvi.  18)  poor  sinners  fly  for  refuge  when 
justice  pursues  them,  and  there  they  are  safe  in 
the  virtue  of  the  sacrifice  there  offered.  .  .  . 
The  washing  of  the  body,  in  the  outward  service 
of  the  ancient  sanctuary,  was  intended  to  teach 
the  necessity  of  inward  purity  in  all  who  would 
draw  near  to  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth  (Psalm 


92 


MER  CERSB  UR  G    THRO  LOG  3 '. 


xxvi.  6,  Ixvi.  1 8).  Thus  the  Apostle  exhorts 
believers  to  draw  near  to  God  with  a  true 
heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  'their 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and 
their  bodies  washed  with  pure  water'  (Heb. 
X.  22).  So  we  need  to  be  washed  every  day, 
and  are  required  every  day  to  come  with  re- 
pentance and  faith  to  Christ,  that  we  may  be 
cleansed,  and  so  fitted  to  come  before  the  Lord 
with  an  acceptable  service  (James  iv.  8  ;  i  John 
i.  7-10).  More  especially  the  laver,  moreover, 
was  a  continual  sign  that  the  nature  of  man  had 
become  polluted,  and  that  until  the  pollution 
was  entirely  taken  away  it  could  find  no  en- 
trance into  heaven.  As  on  the  altar  the  eye  of 
taith  might  behold,  as  it  were,  this  inscription. 
Without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remissimt, 
so  also  it  might  read  upon  the  laver,  Without 
holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.  It  is  not 
enough  that  sacrifice  and  atonement  are  made 
for  sin  so  as  to  satisfy  the  law  ;  the  soul  needs 
at  the  same  time  to  be  delivered  from  its  deep- 
rooted  power,  to  be  washed  from  its  dark-colored 
stain,  to  be  sanctified  as  well  as  justified,  and  so 
made  meet  for  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in 
light.  A  laver,  therefore,  as  well  as  an  altar, 
was  planted  out  before  the  tabernacle,  and  it 
stood  between  the  altar  and  the  sanctuary,  show- 
ing that  pardon  through  the  Great  Sacrifice  is 
the  first  benefit  which  the  believer  receives,  and 
that  this  is  followed  by  the  complete  sanctifica- 
tion  of  his  nature  before  he  passes  into  the 
house  not  made  with  hands  on  high.  ...  It 
gave  assurance  at  the  same  time  that  this  great 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


93 


purification  was  not  an  object  of  despair,  as  it 
must  have  been  if  left  to  man  to  accomplish  by 
his  own  power,  but  that  the  grace  of  God  had 
made  provision  for  it  altogether  sufficient  and 
sure,  that  a  f 02111  tain  for  (he  ^mcleaiiness  of  sin 
was  wonderfully  secured  by  the  same  love  that 
procured  redemption  from  its  guilt,  in  which  the 
soul  might  be  made  as  white  as  if  it  had  never 
been  defiled  with  the  smallest  stain  (Eph.  v.  26, 
27;  Rev.  i.  5,  vii.  14)." — Biblical  Antiquities, 
pp.  264-66. 

We  have  purposely  given  the  foregoing  quo- 
tations at  length,  because  they  show  us  in  the 
clearest  light  and  in  very  apt  language  the 
purport  and  deeply-spiritual  meaning  of  the 
symbolical  and  figurative  terms  which  are  em- 
ployed in  the  Old  Testament  service.  The 
whole  of  it  is  a  grand,  deeply-instructive  cere- 
monial, "  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,"  but 
which,  having  their  fulfillment  in  Christ,  "are 
passed  away."  Christ,  therefore,  is  now  the 
true,  the  only  altar  to  the  Christian ;  the  "  bra- 
zen altar"  is  needed  no  more  to  point  to  Him. 
He  is  here  Himself.  No  external  altar  at 
Jerusalem  or  on  Gerizim  is  now  needed  for  the 
worshiper  to  approach  unto, — so  taught  the 
Saviour  Himself, — for  they  that  worship  Him 
worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  The  Chris- 
tian's altar,  according  to  the  passage  quoted  by 
Dr.  Nevin  in  the  passage  above  (Heb.  xiii.  10), 


94 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


is  Christ  Himself,  whereof  they  have  not  the 
privilege  to  eat  who  serve  in  the  tabernacle. 

This  might  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  us  that  the 
term  altar  is  now  an  inappropriate  term  in  con- 
nection with  New  Testament  worship.  In  any 
proper,  in  the  Christian  or  Neiv  Testament  sense, 
thej^e  IS  NO  altar  save  as  applied  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  Himself.  The  exposition  of  Dr. 
Nevin,  given  in  the  foregoing  quotations,  is  the 
undoubted  true  gospel  sense,  the  sense  of  the 
early  Church,  the  sense  of  the  evangelical 
Church  of  Protestantism.  The  name  altar  was, 
it  is  true,  retained  by  Luther,  but  without  the 
Jewish  or  Roman  Catholic  idea  connected  with 
it.  And  as  Protestants  worshiped  in  a  number 
of  churches  in  Europe  which  were  built  in  the 
middle  ages  with  the  regular  altar-form  in  them, 
they  continued  to  call  it  so,  and  also  called 
the  Lord's  Supper  the  sacrament  of  the  altar. 
But  it  was  a  misnomer.  Luther  repudiated,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  priesthood  in  the  Jewish  and 
Romish  sense  with  all  his  soul,  and  so  also  the 
term  altar  in  its  priestly  and  sacerdotal  sense. 
The  "  sacrament  of  the  altar,"  in  proper  lan- 
guage, means  a  priestly  sacrifice  in  the  Jewish 
or  Roman  Catholic  sense,  and  nothing  else. 
The  Reformed  Church,  from  the  start,  more 
free  and  unfettered  than  the  Lutheran,  refused 
to  allow  the  term  altar  to  be  used,  on  account. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


95 


in  a  great  measure,  of  the  shameful  abuses  con- 
nected with  it.  And  hence  they  at  once  restored 
the  apostolical  terms,  "  The  Table  of  the  Lord," 
'<  The  Lord's  Table,"  '<  The  Supper  of  the  Lord," 
etc.  And  it  is  very  significant  that  in  no  one  of 
the  numerous  confessional  writings  Is  this  term 
ever  used.     It  was  designedly  discarded. 

THE    REFORMED    VIEW. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  does  not  contain 
the  word  altar,  in  the  sense  referred  to,  from  be- 
ginning to  end.  In  treating  of  the  Eucharist  it 
calls  it  the  "  Lord's  Supper,"  the  "Bread  and  Cup 
of  the  Lord,"  but  nowhere  does  it  speak  of  it  as 
the  "altar."  There  is  a  wise  and  Scriptural 
avoidance  of  any  expression  which  by  possibility 
could  lead  to  the  idea  underlying  that  term. 

Out  of  a  number  of  Reformed  Confessions,  we 
shall  quote  only  the  following,  to  show  why  altars 
were  discarded  in  the  Reformed  Churches : 

Confession  of  Nassati  (a.d.  1559):  "And  as 
we,  as  Christians,  have,  properly  speaking,  in 
the  New  Testament  neither  altar  nor  sacrifice  as 
under  the  law  of  Moses  ;  and  the  Papists  have 
again  introduced  the  altars  from  the  old  Leviti- 
cal  Priesthood,  and  only  for  this  reason,  because 
out  of  the  Lord's  Supper  they  have  made  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass.  .  .  Therefore  such  entirely 
idolatrous  altars  have  been  removed,  and  in  their 
stead   proper   tables,   covered   with    cloth,    are 


96  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

placed  in  the  churches  and  used  for  the  com- 
munion. In  some  places  the  altars  of  stone 
have  been  remodeled  so  as  to  be  like  tables." 

And  ao-ain : 

"It  is  certain  from  the  history  of  the  Church 
that  altars  were  introduced  lono-  after  the  time 
of  Constantine  [in  the  fourth  century].  From 
this  it  follows  that  the  Church  of  God,  from  the 
Apostles'  time  down  to  the  time  of  Constan- 
tine, made  no  use  of  altars  in  the  administration 
of  the  Holy  Sacraments,  but  only  of  tables.  So 
also  Christ  in  the  first  institution  of  the  Supper. 
Hence  the  Apostle  speaks,  not  of  the  altar, 
but  of  the  Lord's  Table." 

Bremen  Confession :  "In  the  first  and  oldest 
churches  there  were  for  hundreds  of  years  no 
altars  in  use,  because  the  Old  Covenant  had 
ceased,  and  altars  do  not  belong-  to  the  public 
worship  of  the  New  Covenant,  after  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  made  through 
His  death  upon  the  cross.  But  when,  under 
the  Papacy,  they  made  out  of  the  Supper  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the  dead, 
then  they  also  introduced  in  a  perverting  man- 
ner the  altar  into  the  churches.  And  as  in  the 
mass  they  invoked  the  departed  saints,  so  they 
also  filled  the  altars  with  many  sacred  things 
and  idolatrous  pictures.  They  also  held  that 
the  Supper  could  not  be  rightly  administered, 
unless  from  a  consecrated  altar.  And  hence 
the  name  has  remained,  although  it  would  be 
much  more  appropriate  to  call  it,  with  the 
Apostle,  the  Table  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  Many  of  the 
Evangelical  Churches,  for  the  purpose  of  mani- 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  q7 

festing  their  earnest  dislike  of  the  papistic 
abominations  connected  with  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass  and  invocation  of  saints,  have  entirely  abol- 
ished the  altars,  and  instead  thereof  make  use 
of  suitable  tables,  covered  with  a  cloth,  which 
are  allowed  constantly  to  remain  in  one  place, 
from  which  the  Supper  is  distributed.  But  if 
the  fabulous  holy  things  and  idolatrous  pictures 
have  been  removed,  and  the  abomination  of  the 
mass  has  given  place  to  the  true  doctrine  and 
appropriate  use  of  the  Holy  Supper,  we  allow 
it,  from  want  of  a  better  opportunity,  to  be  a 
part  of  Christian  liberty  that,  after  doing  away 
with  the  idolatrous  practices,  use  be  made  of 
the  masonry  of  the  altars  in  the  churches,  as  of 
a  table  of  stone ;  and  we  regard  it  as  useful  for 
the  edifying  of  God's  Church,  that  in  place  of 
the  wings  which  formerly  were  at  the  altar, 
hereafter  the  principal  part  of  the  Catechism 
be  engraved  in  good  readable  letters  and  placed 
before  their  eyes ;  but,  whether  it  be  a  table  of 
stone  or  wood  from  which  the  Holy  Sacrament 
be  dispensed,  it  is  always  proper  that  the  min- 
ister should  turn,  not  his  back,  btU  always  his 
face  toward  the  people f''  in  order  that  the  whole 


*  It  is  significant  and  worthy  of  note  that  some  of  the  more  ardent 
friends  of  the  Mercersburg  theology  have  already  begun  to  imitate  the 
custom  here  condemned,  by  turning  their  back  to  the  people  in  per- 
forming certain  portions  of  the  liturgical  service.  The  writer  was 
witness  himself  of  such  a  performance  in  a  Reformed  congregation, 
when  two  of  our  professors  stood,  one  on  the  right,  the  other  on  the 
left  side  of  the  communion  table,  engaged  in  liturgical  services  pre- 
paratory to  the  communion  on  the  following  day.  They  faced  each 
other  (the  table  between  them),  having  their  backs  to  a  portion  of  the 
9  G 


gS  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

congregation  may  be  able  the  better  to  hear, 
see,  and  understand  that  the  reciting  of  the 
words  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper  takes 
place,  not  on  account  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
but  on  account  of  the  people,  as  also  Christ 
Himself  did  not  talk  with  the  bread  and  wine, 
but  with  His  disciples,  in  the  institution  of  the 
Supper."     (a.d.  1595.) 

Even  Luther  himself,  with  all  his  conser- 
vatism in  these  outward  matters,  says  that  the 
"vestments  [3fessgewdnder),  altars,  and  candles 
might  be  allowed  to  remain  as  yet,  until  they 
are  all  to  be  changed,  or  until  we  think  it  is  the 
right  time.  But  in  the  right  mass  [he  means 
the  Supper],  with  true  Christians,  the  altar 
would  have  to  be  changed,  and  the  priest  [min- 
ister] always  to  turn  toward  the  people,  as  Christ 
Himself  doubtless  did  in  the  Supper." 

That  eminent  theologian  and  writer  on 
Church  History,  Professor  K.  R.  Hagenbach, 
of  Basle,  says : 

"The  elements  (bread  and  wine)  are  placed 
upon  the  Table  of  the  Lord,  and  afe  thence 
distributed  to  the  people.  This  table  is,  in  the 
Catholic  and   the   Lutheran  Church,  the   altar. 

congregation, — a  sort  of  compromise  measure,  we  suppose,  at  least  for 
the  present.  We  repeat,  "such  things  are  of  themselves  of  no  great 
moment,  but  as  part  and  parcel  of  something  back  of  them  they  are  sig- 
nificant. On  leaving  the  church  referred  to,  a  good,  simple-hearted 
member  of  the  congregation  said  to  her  companion,  "Why/did  those 
two  ministers  stand  sideways  as  they  did  ?" — a  question  which  the  other 
could  not  answer. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  gg 

The  altar  is  also,  in  part,  found  in  Reformed 
Churches  [as  before  noticed,  they  were  allowed 
to  continue  in  the  old  churches],  but  without 
claiming  any  otJier  ineaiiing  thaji  that  of 'a  com- 
niunion-tabler  In  a  note  he  remarks,  '■'Table  of 
the  Lord  is  the  proper  biblical  expression  (i 
Cor.  X.  21 ;  compare  Heb.  ix.  2).  The  first 
Christians,  it  is  well  known,  had  no  altars."* 

DOES  THE  NEW  OR  MERCERSBURG  THEOLOGY  TEACH 
OTHERWISE  ? 

Let  US  see.  An  altar,  in  the  view  of  Roman 
Catholics  and  Puseyite  (or  High  Church)  Episco- 
palians, is  the  specially  holy  place  in  the  church. 
A  special  sacredness  is  attached  to  it,  because 

*  A  year  or  more  ago,  we  read  an  article  in  the  Reformed  Cliui-ch 
Messenger  from  a  correspondent,  in  which  he  compliments  a  previous 
writer,  presumably  another  correspondent  (for  we  have  neither  of  the 
numbers  of  the  paper  at  hand,  and  speak  from  memory),  on  having 
triumphantly  proved  that  the  removing  of  the  altar  in  the  churches  in 
this  country  and  putting  in  their  place  a  table  was  an  "  innovation," 
and  consequently  " anti- Reformed  P^  I  may  not  use  the  correspondent's 
exact  words,  but  I  am  sure  I  give  the  substance.  I  have  no  recollection 
whatever  of  seeing  the  article  with  its  triumphant  proofs,  and  can  only 
surmise  what  they  must  have  been, — probably  the  removal  of  square 
wooden  things  yclept  altars,  but  which  were  no  altars,  and  which  the 
people  and  their  ministers  most  assuredly  did  not  regard  as  such  in  the 
sacrificial  sense.  After  what  we  have  allowed  some  of  our  Reformed 
standards  and  other  authorities  to  testify  on  the  subject  of  the  altar  on 
the  foregoing  pages,  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  triumphant  proof 
was  probably  of  the  kind  which  a  certain  young  pulpit  orator  years 
ago  furnished.  He  boldly  announced  that  he  would  (i)  explain  and 
show  where  the  wind  came  from,  (2)  whither  it  went,  and  (3)  that, 
as  nobody  had  ever  seen  the  wind,  it  was  more  than  probable  that 
nobody  knew  whence  it  came  or  70/iitker  it  went ! 


lOo  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

only  from  it  should  intercession  be  made  or 
prayer  for  the  people  be  offered.  It  should  be 
an  altar  in  form  as  well  as  in  fact:  hence  the 
great  zeal  which  some  of  our  younger  brethren 
display  to  have  the  "  puritanic  table"  removed 
and  the  right  sort  of  thing  substituted  therefor. 
Hence  we  have  had  a  profusion  of  articles  in 
our  Church  periodical  on  the  subject  in  time 
past,  long  before  it  was  clearly  declared  what 
was  inchicied  in  the  altar-service. 

This  term,  altar-service,  is  of  itself  sufficiently 
significant.  It  tells  any  one  who  is  acquainted 
with  High-Church  Lutheran  or  High-Church 
English  writers  that  it  means  immensely  more 
than  some  more  or  less  multifarious  liturorical 
forms  or  ritual  ceremonials.  A  mere  outward 
service  of  this  sort  might  be  nothing  more  than  a 
matter  of  taste, — something  a^sthetical,  perhaps. 
But  in  ecclesiastical  lanofuacre  that  word  has  a 
peculiar,  fixed,  and  definite  meaning.  It  includes 
the  sacrificial  and  priestly  view  to  which  we 
have  referred  at  some  length.  The  altar  belongs 
to  that,  and  is  in  harmonious  accord  with  it,  and 
with  no  other  view.  Dr.  Nevin  well  understood 
this  when  he  used  that  term  in  his  tract  before 
the  Liturgy  made  its  public  appearance.  Perhaps 
few,  comparatively,  among  our  ministers  then 
understood  it ;  many  do  not  now, — if  we  may 
judge  from  their  declarations  that  there  are  no 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  iqi 

doctrines  enunciated  in  the  Liturgy,  especially 
in  the  new  Order  of  Worship,  which  go  beyond 
the  confessional  system  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
That  this  is  so  is,  however,  confessed  by  Dr. 
Nevin  himself,  nor  was  he  at  fault  on  that 
account,  although  it  might  perhaps  have  been 
expected  from  him  that  he  should  have  more 
fully  advertised  his  unsuspecting  brethren  and 
the  Church  at  large  of  the  fact.  He  said  frankly 
that  Jiis  idea  of  a  liturgy  was  that  of  an  altar- 
liturgy.  That  should  have  been  sufficient  to 
tell  every  one  of  us  what  was  comprehended  in 
his  plan  of  a  liturgy.  But  it  was  not.  And  when 
a  few  of  us  hinted  even  that  a  great  deal  was 
meant  by  it,  we  were  looked  upon  as  "  enemies 
of  Dr.  N.,"  and  I  know  not  what  else. 

In  his  "Vindication  of  the  New  Liturgy,"  Dr. 
Nevin  says : 

"  I  may  say  that  I  hardly  expected  or  wished 
the  Synod  to  fall  in  with  the  high  view  of  altar- 
worship  presented  in  the  tract"  (p.  '^'^. 

Again  :  "  The  idea  of  an  altar-liturgy  was  de- 
clared [by  him]  to  be  alone  worthy  of  respect." 

He  says  "the  Synod  knew  perfectly  well 
where  the  committee  [of  the  Liturgy]  stood  in 
regard  to  the  whole  subject." 

Here,  we  think,  he  is  mistaken,  and  just  this 
not  2uidersta7iding  the  full  import  of  what  was 
comprehended  in  an  altar-liturgy  on  the  part 


I02  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

of  the  great  majority  both  of  ministers  and 
people  at  that  time,  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
great  troubles  afterwards.  But  of  this  it  is  not 
our  purpose  to  speak. 

It  was  an  altar-liturgy  that  was  intended  to 
be  prepared,  not  a  "mere  pulpit-liturg)^"  says 
Dr.  Nevin,  "a  collection  of  dry  forms  [but  must 
the  forms  necessarily  be  d)'y  because  not  read 
at  the  altar  ?]  for  the  use  of  the  minister,  in  the 
usual  style  of  such  mechanical  helps.  It  was 
somethine  altoo-ether  different  from  that.  It 
carried  with  it  the  spirit  and  power  of  a  true 
altar-liturgy,  .  .  .  not  simply  a  scheme  of  re- 
ligious service,  but  a  scheme  also  of  religious 
thought  and  belief  materially  at  variance  with 
preconceived  opinion  in  certain  quarters" 
[rather,  at  variance  with  the  doctrinal  faith  and 
standard  of  the  Reformed  Church,  as  it  is  else- 
where also  candidly  acknowledged  to  be].'-' 

No  one,  we  think,  will  undertake  to  say  that 
an  altar-liturgy,  with  all  that  it  includes,  was 
ever  intended  by  the  Synod  in  Norristown,  in 
1849,  when  it  first  appointed  the  committee  to 
prepare  a  new  Liturgy;  no  one,  after  the  decided, 
clear,  ringing  testimony  of  the  early  standards 
and  other  authorities  of  the  Reformed  Church 

*  Dr.  Nevin  says  of  the  Western  Liturgy  that  "it  lacks  the  very 
centre  of  all  liturgical  worship,  namely,  a  true  central  altar-sacrifice." 
This  is  speaking  out  manfully  in  words  of  "  no  uncertain  sound." 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  103 

which  have  been  adduced  (and  which  might  be 
increased  tenfold),  will  dare  to  say  that  such  was 
the  "worship  of  our  fathers."  There  was  not  one 
Reformed  congregation  three  hundred  years 
ago,  and  there  is  not  one  now  on  the  continent 
of  Europe,  which  has  used  or  is  now  using  such 
an  altar-liturgy,  with  all  that  is  included  in  it,  in 
the  sense  and  meaning  as  held  by  Dr.  Nevin 
and  those  who  hold  his  views  on  the  subject 
under  consideration.  This  may  seem  a  sweeping 
declaration,  but  we  challenge  a  contradiction. 

Seeing,  then,  what  is  meant  by  an  altar- 
liturgical  service,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
Reformers  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  the 
framers  of  the  standards  of  the  Church,  and 
later  evangelical  writers  down  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  so  earnestly  lifted  up  their  voices 
against  the  altar.  They,  also,  comprehended 
fully  its  meaning.  It  meant  the  human  priest- 
hood ;  it  meant  the  sacrifice ;  it  meant  the 
priest  clothed  with  power  and  authority,  all  in 
some  sense  akin  to,  if  not  in  full  measure 
with,  that  which  obtains  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  There  they  had  seen  its  workings  in 
perfection,  and  they  felt  in  the  very  depth  of 
their  souls  that  the  Reformation  would  have  no 
meaning  and  could  not  be  justified  if  the  main 
prop  and  pillar  of  the  Papacy — the  priesthood 
with  its  altar  and  sacrifice — were  suffered   to 


I04 


MER  CERSB  UR G    THEOL  OGY. 


Stand  intact.  Hence  their  outspoken  opposition 
to  it.  (For  a  truly  masterly  delineation  of  the 
PAPAL  SYSTEM,  sec  some  extracts  in  the  Appendix 
(I.)  from  Dr.  Dorner's  Essay  read  before  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  in  New  York.) 

The  editor  of  the  New  York  CJiristian  Intel- 
ligencer i^^iornx^d.  Dutch)  says  on  this  subject: 

..."  We  do  offer  to  God  spiritual  sacrifice 
when  we  offer  devout  worship  to  Him,  but  these 
acts  of  prayer  and  praise  cannot  be  laid  upon 
any  table  or  altar  which  is  open  to  human 
inspection.  The  heart  is  the  altar  from  which 
they  ascend.  These  acts  in  their  very  nature 
are  spiritual,  and  the  addition  of  any  material 
object  seems  to  us  to  be  irrelevant.  '  God  is  a 
spirit,  and  they  that  worship  Him  must  worship 
in  spirit  and  in  truth.'  It  is  all  true  that  public 
worship  needs  forms  of  expression.  It  is  de- 
signed to  find  utterance  in  words ;  but  the 
simplest  forms  of  speech  are  as  acceptable  as 
the  most  elaborate  of  liturgies,  when  they  pro- 
ceed from  a  heart  filled  with  the  love  of  God. 
In  using  symbols  for  the  furtherance  of  public 
devotion,  we  must  have  New  Testament  warrant 
for  the  adoption  of  any  rite  or  the  introduction 
of  any  emblematic  device.  Rome  has  adopted 
the  altar  in  order  to  keep  prominently  before 
her  devotees  the  idea  of  the  real  presence  in 
the  offering  up  of  the  mass,  which  she  calls  the 
'unbloody  sacrifice  of  the  mass.'  With  the 
special  design  of  insisting  upon  the  transub- 
stantiation  of  the  wafer  into  the  real  body  and 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


105 


blood  of  Christ,  she  sets  up  her  altars  in  the 
buildings  which  are  dedicated  to  the  exercise  of 
her  forms  of  worship.  The  wafer,  after  the  form 
of  consecration  in  the  use  of  which  it  is  re^rarded 
as  miraculously  converted  into  the  real,  actual, 
living  Christ,  is  called  the  host,  i.e.,  hostia,  a 
victim,  and  our  Lord  is  represented  as  being 
thus  perpetually  and  repeatedly  offered  up  as 
often  as  this  ceremony  is  repeated.  The  use 
of  the  altar,  under  such  circumstances,  is  espe- 
cially significant,  but  apart  from  all  such  ideas 
the  relevancy  of  this  furnitiLj^e  is  not  easily 
understood.  The  usages  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  indicate,  as  it  seems  to  us,  that  our 
Lord  is  crucified  afresh,  and  such  acts  of  wor- 
ship cannot  be  acceptable,  because  they  are 
manifestly  in  direct  contradiction  of  the  words 
of  Holy  Scripture.  By  that  one  sacrifice  offered 
on  Calvary,  He  has  forever  perfected  them 
that  are  sanctified.  That  oblation  cannot  be 
repeated.  It  was  the  one  great  transaction 
in  which  all  the  sacrificial  ceremonies  of  the  old 
Jewish  ritual  found  their  completion.  There 
remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,  since  Christ 
has  died,  except  that  one  oblation  which  is  of 
perpetual  efficacy ;  and  therefore  the  use  of  the 
altar  apart  from  all  afifinity  with  such  views  is 
not  relevant." 

AN   ALTAR-LITURGY    INCONSISTENT    WITH   THE    GE- 
NIUS AND  CUSTOMS  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH. 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  doctrines 
contained    in    the    Liturgy    ("  Order  of  Wor- 


I06  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

ship")  are  not  in  accordance  with  the  teachings 
of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.    But,  apart  from 
the  doctrinal  departure,  a  most  serious  objection 
holds  aofainst  that  book,  more  even  than  to  its 
predecessor,    the  Provisional  Liturgy,   because 
of  its  complicated  and  constrained  ceremonial. 
The  Reformed    Church    never    worshiped   ac- 
cording to  anything  of  the  sort.     That   there 
were  forms  of  prayer  and  other  services  pre- 
pared during  the  Reformation  period,  not  only 
by  Luther,  Zwingle,  Calvin,  and  even  by  Knox 
(in  Scotland),  we  know  full  well — none  of  them, 
however,  in  the  style  of  the  "  Order  of  Wor- 
ship ;"    but  we  know,  also,   that  those    forms, 
which  were  retained  at  first  from  expediency, 
soon  came  to  be  distasteful  to  the  people,  and 
hence,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  prayers  and 
sacramental  forms,  etc.,  were  very  soon  out  of 
use  in  public  worship.     A  full  responsive  ser- 
vice, away  from  the  gorgeous  cathedral  or  simi- 
lar surroundings,  is  in  fact  out  of  place.     It  is 
not  in  harmony  with  Protestant  houses  of  wor- 
ship   and  with    the  genius    of   the    Protestant 
Church,  in  which,  although  too  much  preponder- 
ance may  often  have  been  given  to  preaching 
and  too  little  to  prayer  and  praise,  yet,  thank 
God,  the  preaching  of  the  word  is,  and  ought 
to  be,  according  to  the  word  of  God  and  the' 
examples    of   the    Apostles,    the    central    part 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  107 

of  the  worship  in  God's    house.      In    propor- 
tion    as     rituaHsm    is    made    prominent,    the 
sermon   will    fall    into    the    background, — the 
pulpit  will  be  overshadowed  by  the  altar, — an 
evidence  of  which,  in  its  incipiency,  is  already 
showing  itself  in  the  utterances  and    even    in 
some  cases  in  the  practice   in  some   quarters 
in  our  own    Church.      Now,  we  say  that  this 
style  of    worship  is  new   and    strange  in    the 
Reformed  Church.     Neither  in  Germany,  Swit- 
zerland, France,  Holland,  nor,  indeed,  anywhere 
else,  have  we  seen  or  heard  anything  of  the 
kind.     And  we  are  confident  in  our  own  mind 
that  it  never  will,   it  never  can   be   ingrafted 
upon    the    Reformed  Church   in    this    country. 
You  may  get  people  here  and  there  to  submit 
to    it,  they  may    unthinkingly   agree    to    it   to 
please    the    preacher,    or  some   may    even    be 
made  to  believe   that  it  is  "  worshiping  as  the 
fathers  did,"  and  that  it  is  therefore  according 
to  the  "  genius  and  spirit  of  the  Church  a  hun- 
dred years   ago"  (which  is  simply  not  so)  ;   but 
as  for  a  hearty  acceptance  and  adoption,  it  will, 
we  are  fully  persuaded,  never  be  done.     You 
may  get  an  organ  and  a  choir  to  go  through 
certain  portions  of  the  service,  and  you  may 
have  faint-hearted  responses  here  and  there,  but 
the  great  mass  of  the  people  will  eschew  it.    And 
then  what  is  gained  by  any  such  forced  method 


I08  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

of  introducing  the  Liturgy?  Heart-burnings, 
distractions,  confusion,  and  all  manner  of  evil 
fruits.  A  few  only  of  our  congregations  use 
the  service  in  full  now,  after  years  of  effort  to 
introduce  it ;  and  are  these  benefited  by  it,  even 
in  an  external  way  ?  It  seems  not.  And  as  for 
the  German  portion  of  the  Church — by  far  the 
largest  portion  yet — whether  native  or  foreign 
born,  we  know  not  of  a  single  congregation 
which  has  expressed  the  desire  to  have  a  full 
liturgical  service.  Indeed,  the  Liturgy  has  only 
quite  recently  been  translated  into  German,  a 
proof  that  it  was  not  called  for,  and  we  pre- 
dict that  the  book  will  lie  on  the  shelf  for  a 
long  time,  and  then  scarcely  find  entrance  into 
any  number  of  German  congregations.  This 
was  our  conviction  thirteen  years  ago,  when  we 
were  appointed  one  of  a  committee  to  trans- 
late the  Provisional  Liturgy  into  the  German 
language,  before  we  were  fully  aware  of  the 
objectionable  doctrinal  contents  of  the  book. 
On  that  account  we  afterwards  declined  to 
serve  on  the  committee,  and  the  Synod,  after 
waiting  one  or  more  years,  finally  dropped  the 
matter,  and  only  recently  had  the  work  pub- 
lished. 

Dr.  Nevin  has  declared  more  than  once  that 
it  did  not  seem  to  meet  with  favor,  and  had 
therefore  better  be  given  up.    But  some  others 


MERCERSBURG   THEOLOGY.  ^OQ 

were  fully  bent,  it  seems,  on  pushing  matters  to 
an  extreme,  and  by  their  actions,  if  not  by  their 
words,  seemed  to  say  that  they  would  rather 
see  the  institutions  at  Lancaster  given  up,  and 
general  disaster  to  the  Church  ensue,  than  give 
up  the  Liturgy. 

Now  we  ask  brethren,  why  this  uncalled-for 
zeal  to  force  upon  the  Church  (for  it  is,  after  all, 
force  in  some  form)  a  liturgical  service  which 
is  foreign  to  our  custom  and  genius  as  a  de- 
nomination ?  For  most  assuredly  it  is  foreign 
in  both  these  respects,  although  it  has  been  de- 
nied again  and  again,  we  charitably  hope  from 
ignorance  rather  than  from  a  worse  motive. 
This  we  shall  now  try  to  substantiate  from  the 
admissions  and  confessions  of  the  principal  au- 
thor of  the  Liturgy,  Dr.  Nevin. 

In  his  tract  on  the  "  Liturgical  Question,"  he 
says  that  it  was  constructed  on  a  different  plan 
from  any  of  the  Liturgies  of  the  Reformed 
Church  (p.  39).  And  in  the  following  pages  are 
these  words  (the  italicizing  is  our  own)  : 

"  It  is  to  be  fully  admitted  that  there  lay  in 
the  distinguishing  spirit  of  the  Reformed  Con- 
fessions, as  such,  from  the  beginning,  a  tendency 
in  opposition  to  the  constraint  of  fixed  religious 
rites  and  ceremonies,  which  could  hardly  fail  to 
exert  an  injurious  influence  on  any  work  of  this 
sort  [an  altar-liturgy].  It  belonged,  as  we  all 
know,  to  the  Reformed  Church,   to    represent 


]  I  o  MER CERSB URG    THEOLOG  Y. 

that  side  of  the  Christian  hfe  in  which  the 
inward,  the  free,  the  spiritual  in  reHgion  are 
asserted  against  the  authority  of  the  merely 
outward  in  every  view.  Such  is  her  historical 
vocation, — such  her  genius."  Again,  on  page 
50  he  says,  speaking  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy, 
"  It  has  not  professed  at  all  to  be  of  one  order 
simply  with  the  liturgical  practice  of  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, and  much  less  of  one  order  with  what  had 
come  to  be  its  liturgical  practice  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  when  it  was  first  transplanted  to 
this  country.  That  practice,  from  the  beginning, 
is  believed  to  have  been  too  naked  and  bald, 
running  naturally  into  the  theory  which  makes 
a  liturgy  to  be  a  book  of  outward  forms  and 
nothing  more.  The  new  Liturgy  was  constructed 
throughout  on  another  theory  altogether, — the 
theory  of  an  altar-service,  in  distinction  from 
what  may  be  called  a  service  simply  of  the  pul- 
pit.— It  makes  common  cause  with  the  Liturgies 
of  the  ancient  Church. — It  breathes  throughout 
a  sacrificial  spirit y  (Page  51.)  "  The  Reformed 
Confession  from  the  beginning  has  not  been 
favorable  to  much  outward  form  or  ritual  action 
in  worship ;  and  its  liturgical  productions  have 
all  along  been  more  in  sympathy  with  the  pul- 
pit than  the  altar."  (Page  60).  "  It  requires  no 
argument  to  show  that  it  is  not  after  the  pat- 
tern strictly  of  any  system  of  worship  which 
has  prevailed  hitherto  in  the  German  Reformed 
Church,  either  in  this  country  or  in  Europe.  It 
makes  no  such  profession  or  pretense.  If,  thcn^ 
we  want  no  such  innovation  upon  the  old  system. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  m 

.  .  .  it  Is  most  certain,  without  further  question, 
that  the  new  Liturgy,  as  it  now  stands,  is  not 
what  we  need,  or  should  be  wilHng  to  receive. 
It  is  a  question  of  very  viatcrial  change  in  our 
C/uu^ch  practice,  if  not  in  our  Church  life.  The 
new  Liturgy  is  for  us  as  a  Church  in  many  re- 
spects a  new  scheme  of  worship.  It  is  not  the 
pattern  according  to  which  our  fathers  ivor- 
shiped,  either  in  these  United  States,  or  else- 
zuhere."  (Page  62.)  Again,  "We  can  never  be 
satisfied  with  the  Old  Palatinate  Liturgy,  nor 
with  any  of  the  Helvetic  Liturgies  used  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  or  since ;  and  still  less,  of 
course,  with  any  of  the  jejune  formularies  that 
were  used  by  our  ministerial  fathers  of  the  last 
century  here  in  America.  No  reconstruction 
of  any  such  order  of  worship  will  serve  our 
purpose."      (Page  71.) 

Let  this  suffice  to  show  that  an  altar-liturgy 
is  not  after  the  pattern  of  the  Reformed  Church 
'  in  any  period  of  her  history.  It  needs  no  further 
proof,  an  abundance  of  which  we  have  lying  be- 
fore us,  to  substantiate  this,  especially  as  it  is 
so  fully  and  unequivocally  acknowledged  by  the 
highest  authority.  Dr.  Nevin  himself.  Only  let 
none  of  the  younger  brethren  hereafter  use  the 
argument  that  the  use  of  a  liturgy,  of  an  altar- 
liturgy,  in  the  Church  is  "only  going  back  to 
the  usages  of  the  old  Reformed  Church  as  it 
used  to  be,"  or  that  it  is  "merely  reviving  old 
customs  which  Puritanism  or  Methodism  had 


112  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

for  a  time  brought  into  disuse."  We  forbear 
to  characterize  such  declarations  as  they  justly 
deserve.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  fact  to  sus- 
tain them.  Just  in  the  same  way  it  has  been 
maintained,  even  by  theological  teachers,  in  re- 
gard to  the  new  doctrmal  position,  of  which  we 
may,  by  way  of  example,  quote  but  a  single  sen- 
tence :  "  If  the  doctrinal  position  concerning  the 
Liturgy  is  once  understood,"  says  Dr.  Apple,  in 
the  Messenger,  on  "  False  Alarms," — "  if  it  is 
once  understood  that  that  position  is  none  other 
than  the  Church  has  all  along  maintained,  a 
large  portion  of  the  wind  will  be  taken  out  of 
the  sails  of  those  who  oppose  it."  Now  let  the 
candid  reader  refer  to  the  frank  confessions 
made  by  Dr.  Nevin  and  others,  quoted  in  pre- 
vious pages  in  this  book  and  elsewhere,  in 
which  there  is  avowed  an  utter  and  entire  re- 
nunciation of  all  past  and  present  "  reigning 
Protestantism,"  and  we  think  "  the  wind  will  be 
taken  out  of  the  sails"  of  Dr.  Apple  to  a  de- 
gree that  must  bring  his  craft  to  a  dead  stop. 

Yes,  verily  !  "  It  is  a  question  of  very  matej^ial 
change  in  our  Church  practice,  if  not  in  our 
Church  life.  ...  It  is  not  the  pattern  accord- 
ing to  which  our  fathers  worshiped,  either  in 
these  United  States,  or  elsewhere."  So  says  Dr. 
Nevin  ;  and  he  knows  what  he  says,  and  says 
what  he  knows. 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  n^ 

Let  this  be  understood,  then,  once  for  all, 
without  further  debate  or  controversy.  The 
sophistical  Mephistopheles,  in  Goethe's  Faust, 
misled  the  poor  young  man  who  came  to  him 
for  the  arcana  of  knowledge,  when  he  said  to  him 
to  "  stick  to  his  ivords  if  he  would  pass  through 
the  gate  into  the  temple  of  certainty  ;"  and  when 
the  young  man  said  something  about  the  impor- 
tance of  having  some  trtith  or  some  meaning 
connected  with  words,  his  teacher  glossed  over 
in  a  most  wretched  way  his  sophistry,  by  telling 
the  young  man,  with  wonderful  assurance, — 

"  ScliDii  gut !   Nur  muss  man  sich  nicht  allzu  angstlich  (|ualen; 
Denn  eben  wo  Begriffe  fehlen, 
Da  stellt  ein   Woit  zur  rechten  Zeit  sich  ein. 
Mit  Worten  lasst  sich  trefihch  streiten, 
Mit  Worten  ein  System  bereiten, 
An  Worte  Ijisst  sich  trefflich  glauben, 
Von  eineni  Woit  lasst  sich  kein  Iota  lauben." 

Let  our  brethren  on  the  other  side  frankly 
acknowledge,  "  This  is  essentially  a  new  thing, 
such  as  the  Reformed  Church  never  before  had, 
even  so  far  as  the  outward  form  of  it  is  con- 
cerned, but  we  believe  it  is  better  than  the  old, 
and  therefore  we  want  you  to  permit  your  min- 
isters to  introduce  it." 

That  would  be  candid,  honest,  truthful.  And 
if  the  people  zvisJi  to  have  it,  if  they  "  long  for  it," 
as  has  been  said,  if  the  great  mass  of  our 
church-members  show  that  it  is  in  harmony 
with    their    convictions    and    feelinq-s,    then,   in 


114  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

God's  name,  let  them  have  It,  and  we  will 
answer  with  a  loud,  responsive  Amen  !  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  if  such  is  not  the  case,  then 
we  beseech  brethren,  for  the  love  of  God  and 
of  Christ,  for  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
Church,  and  for  the  sake  of  that  charity  which 
never  faileth,  to  desist  from  their  endeavors  by^ 
this  and  that  means  to  obtain  an  unwillino-  sub- 
mission  to  that  which,  if  their  whole  heart  is  not 
in  it,  must  prove  the  very  opposite  of  true  wor- 
ship, and  so  must  prove  displeasing  in  the  sight 
of  God  and  of  good  men. 

THE    SACRAMENTS. 

We  have  shown  with  sufficient  clearness,  we 
hope,  that  the  new  theory  taught  in  Mercers- 
burg  and  Lancaster  is  of  such  a  radical  charac- 
ter that  it  necessarily  affects  the  whole  range  of 
Christian  doctrine.  Hence  it  must,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  affect  also  the  important  subject  of 
the  sacraments. 

Let  us  then  see,  in  the  first  place,  what  is  the 
teachine  of  the  Reformed  Church  on  the  sacra- 
ments  in  general,  and  then  on  each  one  of  the 
two  sacraments  in  particular.  We  quote  from 
the  Catechism : 

''Quest.  65.  Since  then  we  are  made  par- 
takers of  Christ  and  all  His  benefits  by  faith 
only,  whence  does  this  faith  proceed  ? 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  i,t 

''A71S.  From  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  works  faith 
in  our  hearts  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
and  confirms  it  by  the  use  of  the  sacraments. 

"  Quest.  66.  What  are  the  sacraments  ? 

'■'Ans.  The  sacraments  are  holy  visible  signs 
and  seals  appointed  of  God  for  this  end,  that 
by  the  use  thereof  He  may  the  more  fully  declare 
and  seal  to  us  the  promise  of  the  gospel,  to  wit, 
that  He  grants  us  freely  the  remission  of  sin,  and 
life  eternal,  for  the  sake  of  that  one  sacrifice  of 
Christ  accomplished  on  the  cross. 

''Quest.  67.  Are  both  word  and  sacraments 
ordained  and  appointed  for  this  end,  that  they 
may  direct  our  faith  to  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ  on  the  cross  as  the  only  ground  of  our 
salvation  ? 

"Ans.  Yes,  indeed ;  for  the  Holy  Ghost 
teaches  us  in  the  gospel,  and  assures  us  by  the 
sacraments,  that  the  whole  of  02ir  salvation  de- 
pends upoji  that  one  saci-ifice  of  Christ  which  He 
oficrcd for  71s  on  the  cross!' 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  clear  statement  of  the 
nature  of  the  sacraments,  and  also  of  the  con- 
nection which  exists  between  faith  and  the  sacra- 
ments. In  the  first  of  the  foregoing  answers 
we  are  told  that  the  Holy  Ghost  works  faith  in 
our  hearts  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and 
(in  the  language  of  Ursinus)  "cherishes,  confirms, 
and  seals  it  by  the  use  of  the  sacraments.  The 
word  is  a  charter,  to  which  the  sacraments  are 
attached  as  signs.  The  charter  is  the  gospel 
itself,  to  which  the  sacraments  are  affixed  as  the 


Il6  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

seals  of  the  Divine  will.  Whatever  the  word 
promises  concerning  our  salvation  through 
Christ,  that  the  sacraments,  as  signs  and  seals 
annexed  thereto,  confirm  unto  us  more  and 
more  for  the  purpose  of  helping  our  infirmity." 
(Comment.,  p.  340.) 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that,  according  to  Re- 
formed doctrine,  the  sacraments  are  not  in  and 
of  themselves  efficacious  to  salvation.  It  is 
faitJi  that  saves.  The  sacraments  are  "  holy 
visible  signs  and  seals  appointed  of  God  for 
this  end,  that  by  the  use  thereof  He  may  the 
vioi'e  fttlly  declare  and  seal  to  ns  the  pi'oviise  of 
the  gospel,  to  wit,  that  He  grants  us  freely  [that 
which  the  word  has  already  assured  to  us]  the 
remission  of  sin,  and  life  eternal,  for  the  sake 
of  that  one  sacrifice  of  Christ  accomplished  on 
the  cross." 

"We  are  made  partakers  of  Christ  and  all 
His  benefits  [not  in  or  by  baptism,  but]  hy  faith 
only!'  The  answer  to  Question  32,  "Why  art 
thou  called  a  Christian  ?"  is  in  this  clear  and 
unequivocal  form  :  "  Because  I  am  a  member  of 
Christ  [not  by  baptism,  but]  by  fait  Jl'  There 
is  much  more  to  the  same  effect  which  could  be 
adduced  in  our  incomparable  Catechism,  which 
the  more  we  study  the  more  we  admire  and  love 
it.  But  let  this  suffice.  The  Catechism  does 
not  teach  that  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  grace  of 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  ^y 

salvation,  or  the  new  spiritual  life  (regeneration), 
is  bomid  to  the  rite  of  baptism. 

This  is  the  teaching  also  of  all  the  standards 
of  the  Reformed  Church.  Let  us  listen  to  one 
or  two  of  these  out  of  many : 

The  Confession  of  Brandenburg  (Prussia)  : 
"Therefore  baptism  is  called  the  bath  of  re- 
generation, and  consequently  also  that  of  the 
covenant  and  adoption  [Khidschaft)  of  God, 
because  it  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  such  grace  of 
God.  And  this  grace  is  as  sure  to  us  who 
believe  [not  who  are  bapti.zed~\  as  certainly  as 
we  are  baptized,  according  to  the  promise, 
Whosoever  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved."  (See  also  the  Palatinate  Baptism 
Formular)^) 

Dr.  Heppe,  the  able  Reformed  theologian, 
in  setting  forth  the  old  Reformed  doctrine, 
which  it  is  confessed  on  all  sides  that  he  has 
done  with  great  impartiality,  says : 

"  The  reception  of  the  grace,  the  communica- 
tion of  which  is  attested  and  sealed  through 
baptism,  is  7iot  bound  to  the  outward  act  and  to 
the  moment  of  the  sacramental  transaction,  be- 
cause the  efficacy  of  baptism  rather  presupposes 
the  faith  and  conversion  of  men  as  already  at 
hand."  (Much  more  to  the  same  effect  might  be 
quoted  from  this  learned  living  author.) 

Calvin,  speaking  of  the  Catholics,  who  attri- 


Il8  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

bute  to  the  sacraments  all  kinds  of  hidden 
virtues  by  which  justification  and  grace  are 
conferred,  says : 

"  It  is  impossible  to  express  the  pestilent 
and  fatal  effects  of  this  opinion.  .  .  .  Yea, 
it  is  manifestly  diabolical,  because,  by  promising- 
justification  without  faith,  it  hurries  souls  into 
destruction.  .  .  .  We  see  this  exemplified  in 
the  centurion  [Cornelius],  who,  after  having 
received  the  remission  of  his  sins  and  the 
visible  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  baptized, 
not  with  a  view  of  obtaining  through  baptism  a 
more  complete  remission  of  sins,  but  a  stronger 
exercise  of  faith  and  an  increase  of  confidence 
from  that  pledge  (Acts  x.  44-48).  Perhaps  it 
is  objected,  Why  then  did  Ananias  say  to  Paul, 
'Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins'  ? 
I  answer,  we  are  said  to  receive  or  obtain  that 
which  our  faith  apprehends,  as  presented  to  us 
by  the  Lord,  whether  at  the  time  when  He  first 
declared  it  to  us,  or  when,  by  a  subsequent 
testimony.  He  affords  us  a  more  certain  con- 
firmation of  it." 

Now,  what  are  the  views  of  the  Mercersburg- 
Lancaster  school  on  this  subject?  Do  they 
conform  to  the  foregoing  clearly-expressed 
views  of  the  Reformed  Church,  or  do  they 
not? 

Before  quoting  the  language  of  the  new 
theory  on  baptism,  the  reader  must  remember 
the  peculiar  view  which  lies  back  of  it  as  its 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  ug 

groundwork,  in  order  to  understand  fully  the 
"  reason  of  thino;s"  in  their  connections. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that  redemption, 
according  to  the  new  theory,  is  brought  to  man 
(we  quote  Dr.  Nevin's  language)  •'  by  an  orgastic 
conjwictioii  with  the  Saviour,  in  a  way  that  makes 
Him  to  be  the  actual  life-principle  of  their  new 
Christian  beine,  and  shows  their  life  to  be 
mysteriously  involved  in  His  from  the  com- 
mencement to  its  close.  .  .  .  Religion,  to  be 
real,  must  be  in  some  way  a  community  of  life 
with  God,  ...  an  inward  conjunction  in  a  real 
way,  ...  an  incorporation  of  this  higher 
element  into  the  actual  onflowing  life  of  the 
world."  (Language,  this,  which  sounds  strange 
to  the  ear  that  has  not  been  familiar  with  the 
theosophic  system  of  Jacob  Bohme  or  the  writ- 
ings of  the  school  of  the  pantheist  Spinoza.) 

Now,  in  consistency  with  such  a  view  of  re- 
demption is  Tract  No.  3,  acknowledged  to  be 
by  one  of  the  professors  in  Lancaster,  in  which 
it  is  said  that 

"All  the  benefits  of  Christ  are  received,  not 
by  faith,  not  through  previous  knowledge  of  our 
misery,  not  in  the  way  of  repentance  and  faith, 
but  through  baptism,  and  through  baptism  ex- 
clusively." And  again:  "There  is  no  way  in 
which  a  man  can  be  created  anew  by  the  Spirit, 
according  to  the  established  economy  of  salva- 


I20  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

tion,  but  by  baptism."  And  again :  "  A  sinner 
may  be  penitent  for  his  sins,  but  until  he  has 
received  baptism,  as  God's  act  of  remission  to 
him,  he  has  no  true  assurance  of  remission. 
And  when  after  baptism  he  sins  through  in- 
firmity, he  cannot  be  sure  of  pardon  till  his 
absolution  is  spoken,  signed,  and  sealed  by 
Christ,  by  the  means  of  a  Divine  act  through 

the  Church." 

y 

Another  writer  of  respectable  standing  on 
the  same  side,  in  speaking  of  baptism,  holds 
the  following  singular  language  : 

"  It  is,  in  a  few  words,  the  implantation  of  the 
germ  or  principle  of  a  new  or  spiritual  life  from 
Christ,  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
brought  to  pass  in  connection  with  the  proper 
use  of  the  outward  sign"  (baptism). 

Our  honored  father  used  to  tell  us  that  if  we 
had  one  or  two  good,  clear,  unmistakable  proofs 
in  favor  of  any  point,  it  was  as  valid  as  twenty 
or  fifty,  and,  besides,  saved  time.  We  leave  the 
reader  to  look  for  himself  "  on  this  picture,  and 
then  on  this,"  and  judge  whether  this  new  theory 
does  or  does  not  square  with  the  teachings  of 
the  Reformed  Church.  And  this  is  all  that 
we  intended.  We  did  not  design  to  enter  upon 
any  discussion  as  to  the  merits  or  demerits 
of  the  new  theory  here.  We  say  nothing  in 
reference  to  the  question  what  the  sacraments 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY.  121 

are  in  an  objective  way.  We  believe,  with  the 
Reformed  Church,  that  they  are  more  than  mere 
outward  signs,  yea,  that  there  is  an  offer  of 
grace  tendered  through  them.  But  we  waive 
all  that,  and  have  fulfilled  our  task  if  we  have 
succeeded  in  showing  that,  so  far  at  least  as 
baptism  is  concerned,  our  brethren  of  Lancaster 
teach  another  system  altogether  on  the  subject 
from  that  of  our  standards  and  of  all  Reformed 
theologians.*     And  that  is  enough  for  us  for 


*  Di".  Nevin,  in  his  "  Vindication  of  the  Liturgy"  (p.  89),  quotes 
from  the  French  Reformed  divine  Pressense,  with  approbation,  his 
saying,  "  It  is  impossible  to  establish  the  necessity  of  infant  baptism, 
except  upon  the  ground  that  baptism  imparts  a  special  grace;" 
and  then  Dr.  Nevin  adds,  "  We  are  decidedly  of  the  same  opinion, 
and  for  this  reason  we  denounce  this  theology  [the  anti-liturgical 
theology  he  calls  it]  as  in  reality  .  .  .  hostile  to  infant  baptism." 
(Just  before  he  characterized  it  as  "  Pelagian,"  landing  us  swiftly  in 
downright  Rationalism.) 

Now  we,  too,  are  "  decidedly  of  the  same  opinion"  with  the  eminent 
and  good  Pressense;  and  as  we  had  the  privilege  of  personally  knowing 
him  and  his  views  on  this  and  other  theological  subjects,  and,  more- 
over, have  read  some  of  his  works,  we  can  assure  Dr.  Nevin  that  if 
he  agreed  fully  with  the  entire  theological  system  of  that  divine, 
including  the  subject  of  baptism,  there  would  be  no  need  of  any  con- 
troversy in  our  Reformed  Church.  This  is  one  way  of  seeking  comfort 
from  European  theologians.  So  Dr.  Apple  refers  to  the  "  excellent  Dr. 
Christlieb's"  address  at  the  Alliance  over  against  our  American  theology 
on  the  subject  of  inspiration,  when  in  fact  hardly  a  respectable  theolo- 
gian of  this  country  could  be  found  who  holds  essentially  a  different 
view  from  that  incidentally  touched  upon  by  Dr.  C.  But  it  cannot 
have  escaped  Dr.  Apple  that  the  excellent  Christlieb's  entire  stand-point 
in  theology  is  an  out-and-out  opposition  to  the  new  theorj'.  So  with 
Dr.  Nevin  and  Dr.  Pressens6.  This  eminent  man  holds  good  Reformed 
doctrine  on  other  subjects  as  well  as  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  and 
II 


122  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

the  present.  If  they,  in  their  judgment,  think 
that  they  have  discovered  something  deeper 
and  better  from  pre-Reformation  authors,  if 
they  choose  to  sit  at  the  feet  and  learn  of 
men  in  the  fourth  and  sixth  centuries  rather 
than  of  those  of  the  sixteenth,  they  have  a 
natural  right  to  do  so.  But  we  submit  that 
they  have  no  moral  right  in  the  case.  As 
ministers,  and  especially  as  teachers  of  theol- 
ogy, they  are  solemnly  sworn  as  by  a  solemn 
oath  to  expound  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  gospel  as  explained  and  taught  in  the 
Reformed  Church.  If  they  cannot  do  this,  they 
should  have  no  difficulty  in  seeing  what  their 
duty   is    in    such   circumstances.^'     We    ought 


every  Reformed  minister  can  say  Amen  to  them.  But  Dr.  N.  can  rest 
assured  that  he  repudiates  ht  Mo  his  entire  system,  just  as  Domer  and 
Liebner  and  others  have  been  found  to  do  when  it  comes  to  t];e 
marrow  of  things,  and  not  merely  to  some  non-essential  "  points." 

*  The  following  is  the  form  prescribed  in  the  Constitution  : 
"  At  his  inauguration  a  professor  elect  shall  solemnly  affirm  the  fol- 
lowing declaration^  as  by  an  oath,  in  the  presence  of  God,  in  a  public 
assembly : 

"  You,  N.  N.,  professor  elect  of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
German  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States,  acknowledge  sincerely 
before  God  and  this  assembly,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  which  are  called  canonical  Scriptures, are  genuine, 
authentic,  ins])ired,  and  therefore  Divine  Scriptures;  that  they  contain 
all  things  which  relate  to  the  faith,  the  practice,  and  the  hope  of  the 
righteous,  and  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  in  the  Church  of 
God;  that,  consequently,  no  traditions,  as  they  are  called,  and  no 
mere  conclusions  of  reason,  which  are  contrary  to  the  clear  testimony 
of  these  Scriptures,  can  be  received  as  rules  of  faith  or  of  life.  You 
acknowledge,  further,  that  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  must,  there- 
fore, be  received  as  in  accordance  with  Divinely-revealed  truth.     You 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


123 


perhaps  not  to  dismiss  this  subject  without 
some  reference  to  the  form  of  baptism  in  the 
new  Order  of  Worship,  in  which,  of  course,  the 
same  views  are  brought  forward  to  which  we 
have  just  referred.  In  the  introduction  the 
congregation  is  requested  to  call  upon  God, 
"that  of  His  bounteous  mercy  He  may  grant 
to  this  child,  through  the  holy  sacrament  of 
baptism,  that  which  by  nature  lie  cannot  have ; 
that  being  washed  from  his  sins,  and  delivered 
from  the  power  of  the  devil,  he  may  be  made  a 
member,"  etc. 

And  again,  when  addressing  the  parents : 

"  You  present  this  child  here,  and  do  seek 
for  him  deliverance  from  the  power  of  the  devil, 
the  remission  of  sin,  and  the  gift  of  a  new  and 
spiritual  life  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,,  which  Christ  hath  or- 
dained for  the  co7imm7iication  of  such  great 
graced — And  similarly  also  in  the  closing 
prayer. 

No  further  remarks  are  necessary  on  this 
point.     But  that  which  strikes  us  as  unusual 

declare  sincerely,  that  in  the  office  you  are  about  to  assume,  you  will 
make  the  inviolable  Divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  basis 
of  all  your  instructions,  and  faithfully  maintain  and  defend  the  same, 
in  your  preaching  and  writing,  as  well  as  in  your  instructions;  you 
declare,  finally,  that  you  will  labor,  according  to  the  ability  which  God 
may  grant  to  you,  that,  with  the  Divine  blessing,  the  students  entrusted 
to  your  care  may  become  enliglitened,  pious,  faithful,  and  zealous 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  shall  l)e  sound  in  the  faith." 


124 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


and  strange  in  a  baptismal  form  in  a  Reformed 
book  is  the  phraseology  brought  out  in  several 
particulars,  especially  the  words  "delivered 
from  the  power  of  the  devil,"  and  "  You  pre- 
sent this  child  here,  and  do  seek  for  him  de- 
liverance from  the  power  of  the  devil,"  etc. 

We  say  this  is  unusual  and  strange  in  this 
connection.  We  know  very  well  that  those 
who  urge  its  use  charge  those  who  object  to 
it  with  Pelagianism, — that  is,  that  they  are 
tainted  with  low  and  unsound  views  on  the 
subject  of  human  depravity.  Professor  Rust 
was  charged  in  this  way,  and,  although  he  dis- 
avowed the  charge  in  the  most  emphatic  man- 
ner, the  charge  was  repeated  in  the  most  un- 
ceremonious terms  aofainst  that  excellent  man. 

Now,  every  reader  of  Church  history  knows 
that  an  extreme  party  in  the  Lutheran  Church, 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  reinstated  the 
popish  ceremony  of  exorcism  [Austreibung  cics 
Teufels)  ;  and  hence  they  used  those  words  in 
the  form  of  baptism.  In  Germany  a  small 
number  of  ultra-Lutherans  have  ag-ain  at- 
tempted,  not  indeed  to  introduce  exorcism  in 
form,  but  to  interlard  the  form  of  baptism  with 
the  words  just  as  in  the  Order  of  Worship ; 
but  it  created  such  a  storm  of  opposition,  even 
among  the  "faithful  few,"  that  the  innovation 
has,  so  far  as  we  learn,  been  abandoned,  after 


MER  CERSB  UR  G    THEOL  OGY. 


J25 


first  causing  a  division  among  the  hyper-ortho- 
dq^  brethren  themselves. 

The  Reformed  Church  has  ever  protested 
against  anything  that  looked  in  that  direction. 
The  Bremen  Confession  of  1595,  speaking  of 
exorcism,  says  that  it 

"  Strengthens  many  and  great  errors  which 
should  not  by  any  means  be  suffered  in  the 
true  Church  of  God.  For  if  plain  people  hear 
that  the  devil  is  adjured  in  children,  .  .  .  what 
else  can  they  think  but  that  children  are  pos- 
sessed of  the  devil  ?  But  if  it  should  be  said 
that  it  refers  to  the  spiritual  tyranny  of  Satan, 
still  the  Scriptures  speak  only  of  reprobates, 
who  have  been  given  over  to  a  perverse  mind, 
and  in  whom  Satan  is  mighty  as  in  '  the  children 
of  disobedience,'  that  they  are  possessed  of 
the  devil.  And  it  is  one  thing  to  be  subjected 
to  the  power  of  original  sin,  and  another  thing 
to  be  spiritually  possessed  of  the  devil.  Al- 
though all  men  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath, 
and  therefore  of  and  for  themselves  subjected 
to  the  spiritual  tyranny  of  Satan  on  account  of 
original  sin,  yet  it  is  otherwise  with  the  children 
of  believers,  according  to  the  special  grace  of 
God,  through  which  such  children  belong  to  the 
covenant  wherein  Divine  favor  and  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  are  promised  to  them ;  and  just  as 
the  wrath  of  God  does  not  reign  over  them,  ■ 
so  also  is  there  no  reigning  power  over  them 
left  to  the  devil."     (See  Appendix  J.) 

This  is  discriminating  and  just,  in  making  a 
II* 


J  26  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

distinction  between  orimnal  sin  and  beinof  under 
the  power  of  the  devil.  And  whether  anything 
of  Satanic  possession  is  intended  or  not  in  the 
Liturg)^,  it  is  a  most  harsh  and  unjustifiable  use 
of  language,  such  as  was  never  in  vogue  in  the 
Reformed  Church,  and  which,  with  the  writer's 
view,  deeply  as  he  feels  and  knows  what 
heights  and  depths  of  sin  there  are  in  the  hu- 
man heart,  he  could  and  would  never  employ, 
and  therefore  he  can  only  feel  regret  that  it 
should  ever  have  found  a  place  in  that  book. 

Moreover,  as  Dr.  Dorner  very  justly  re- 
marks, "according  to  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  the 
requirement  of  antecedent  or  subsequent  peni- 
tent faith,  in  opposition  to  a  magical  efficacy, 
should  not  have  been  omitted.  Besides,  there 
is  something  unequal  \eine  Unebenheit\  in  Kev- 
in's expressing  himself  in  the  strongest  terms 
upon  the  guilt  and  damnableness  of  original 
sin  as  the  ground  for  the  baptism  of  infants, 
whilst  in  the  doctrine  of  justification  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  does  not  occupy  the  independ- 
ent position  as  a  turning-point"  (in  that  doc- 
trine). 

Very  naturally  and  consistently  with  that 
view  is  that  of  clinical  or  lay  baptism  {Noth- 
tatife),  which  rests  on  the  idea  of  a  magical 
efficacy  in  its  performance.  Hence  it  is  that  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  with  some  of 


MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 


127 


the  ultra-Lutherans,  a  midwife  may  perform 
that  rite, — nay,  even  Jews  and  Turks  have 
performed  it  on  sick  or  dying  children,  and  it 
was  pronounced  valid  by  the  Church  and  her 
priests ! 

The  Reformed  Church  has  always  abhorred 
such  a  view,  and  we  are  well  persuaded  that 
our  people  will  never  submit  to  any  such  fetich- 
ism  as  this. 

"  But  no  one  in  the  Reformed  Church  teaches 
any  such  view."  We  are  happy  to  say  that  we 
know  of  no  one  who  does.  And  yet  there  is  a 
"  tendency"  which  seems  to  look  in  that  direc- 
tion on  the  part  of  leading  men  in  the  Church. 
Their  views  of  baptism  must  lead  them  to 
clinical  baptism.  And  we  know  how  many 
grave  speeches  were  made  in  its  favor  at  the 
Synod  in  Danville  and  the  following  year  in 
Mechanicsburg.  Did  not  brethren  with  great 
apparent  solemnity  declare  that  they  could  not 
rest  contented  in  their  minds  if  a  child  of  theirs 
should  pass  out  of  the  world  unbaptized,  and 
that  if  no  minister  were  at  hand  they  would  let 
any  one  else  baptize  them  ?  It  was  found,  how- 
ever, that  the  time  had  not  yet  come  for  that, 
and  so  it  was  postponed.  We  will  close  these 
remarks  with  an  extract  from  a  learned  and 
well-known  Reformed  clergyman  in  Germany, 
who   was  informed  of  the  discussions   at    the 


128  MERCERSBURG    THEOLOGY. 

Mechanicsburg  Synod  through  a  young  German 
then  in  this  country.     He  says  : 

"And  your  Synod  discussed  the  question  of 
the  NoiJitatLfe  in  all  true  seriousness !  Verily, 
that  is  a  significant  sign  of  the  times,  and  for 
the  Reformed  Church!  I  doubt  whether  our ali- 
Luthera7ier  here  in  Silesia,  even,  could  muster 
twenty  men  who  would  dare  to  broach  such  a 
dogma  publicly, — the  men  who  say  of  us  (Re- 
formed) that  we  have  no  baptism — who  won't 
allow  any  but  their  own  stripe  to  commune  with 
them,  and  who  would  almost  as  soon  allow  Me- 
phistopheles  to  preach  in  their  pulpits  as  they 
would  allow  you  or  me.  One  of  these  ultra- 
Hieh-Church  ecclesiastics    said  to   me  when  I 



mentioned  to  him  the  fact  as  above :  '  That  is 
truly  wonderful !' — Yes,  I  must  repeat  it:  that 
you  could  even  discuss  such  a  theme,  is  a  signifi- 
cant \siginjicantes~\  sign  of  the  times,  and  tells 
me  that  the  '  matin  bells  of  Rome'  must  have 
been  ringing  in  Pennsylvania.  Do  write  and 
tell  me  whether  such  chimes  haye  any  charm 
(or  yozi'' 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


The  writer  of  these  pages  has  no  heart  to 
enter  at  any  length  upon  a  discussion  of  this 
subject  in  its  purely  dogmatical  form.  He  con- 
siders the  Lord's  Supper  one  of  the  most  tender, 
holy,  and  blessed  ordinances  of  Christianity,  one 
in  which  all  the  love  of  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  concentres,  in  which  the  believer  has  the 
nearest  approach  to  the  very  heart  of  his 
Father,  where,  like  the  disciple  who  leaned  on 
Jesus'  bosom,  he  too  is  permitted,  as  it  were,  to 
lean  lovingly,  confidingly,  and  with  an  humble 
boldness.  It  is,  therefore,  a  hallowed  subject, 
one  which  the  mind  in  a  tender  frame  does  not 
feel  like  profaning  by  controversial  discussion. 
Nothing  can  be  more  sad  to  a  devout  heart  than 
the  fact  that  the  very  ordinance  which  was  de- 
signed, among  other  things,  to  symbolize  the 
love  and  fellowship  of  all  true  Christians  with 
one  another  and  with  Christ  their  blessed  Lord 
and  Master  should  have  been  made  the  occasion 
of  heart-burnings  and  bitter  strifes.     Well  may 

we  cry  out,  with  a  lovely  departed  servant  of 

1  129 


I30  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

Christ*  "  Oh  for  a  cycle  of  peace !  Oh  for  a 
breathing-spell  from  these  unnatural  conten- 
tions !  I  feel  as  if  I  could  join  with  any  who 
would  humbly  unite  in  direct  and  kind  efforts 
to  save  sinners  and  reheve  human  misery. 
Cannot  a  poor  believer  go  along  in  his  j)ilgrim- 
age  heavenward  without  being  always  on  mili- 
tar>-  dut}-  ?  At  judgment  I  heartily  believe  that 
some  heresies  of  /ica7't  and  teiJipcr  will  be  charged 
as  worse  than  hea^y  doctrinal  errors.  To  you 
I  may  say  this,  because  you  understand  me  as 
holding,  not  merely  that  the  tenets  of  our 
Church  are  true,  but  that  they  are  ver)'  impor- 
tant. But  I  see  how  easy  it  is  to  'hold  the  truth' 
in  rancor  and  hate,  which  is  the  grand  error  of 
depraved  human  nature,  yea,  and  of  diabolism 
itself"  There  is  much  force  in  this  remark,  and 
it  has  an  important  bearing  on  our  subject. 
There  may  be,  there  aj-e,  no  doubt,  some  whose 
views  of  this  holy  ordinance  are  too  low,  and 
yet  they  may  have  all  the  benefits  and  blessings 
for  their  spiritual  well-being  notwithstanding. 
And  God  forbid  that  we  should  therefore  de- 
nounce those  as  outside  of  the  pale  of  Christ's 
Church  whom  He  has  received,  and  who  show 
forth  in  their  lives  and  conduct  the  image  and 
spirit  of  the  Redeemer.     Still,  it  is  important 

♦  Tlie  Rev.  Dr.  James  W.  Alexander,  in  his  "  Familiar  Letters," 
voL  L,  iS6o. 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


131 


that  we  should  have  Scriptural  views  of  truth 
and  that  these  be  neither  mere  notions  or  dry 
dogmas  on  the  one  side,  nor  fanciful  or  super- 
stitious speculations  on  the  other. 

We  shall,  therefore,  as  already  intimated,  deal 
very  briefly  with  the  dogmatical  statement  of 
the  subject  on  either  side,  whilst  we  shall  furnish 
evidence  of  a  satisfactory  nature,  as  we  humbly 
trust,  that  the  commonly-received  truths  on  the 
subject  of  the  Eucharist  are  fully  in  accordance 
with  the  teachings  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
and  the  word  of  God  as  these  have  been  held 
in  the  Reformed  Church,  and  that  the  views  as 
brought  out  in  the  Liturgy  and  elsewhere  by 
the  new  theory  are  not  in  accordance  with  the 
faith  of  our  Church  and  the  word  of  God. 

And  first  of  all  we  will  bring  forward  the 
Catechism  as  a  witness  in  regard  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Church  on  this  point,  so  that  the 
reader  may  not  need  to  lay  aside  the  book  for 
the  purpose  of  reference.  (The  reader  may 
also  refer  to  Questions  65,  66,  and  6^  in  the 
Catechism,  which  have  already  been  quoted.) 

''Quest.  75.  How  art  thou  admonished  and 
assured  in  the  Lord's  Supper  that  thou  art  a 
partaker  of  that  one  sacrifice  of  Christ,  accom- 
plished on  the  cross,  and  of  all  His  benefits  ? 

''Ans.  Thus,  that  Christ  has  commanded  me, 
and  all  believers,  to  eat  of  this  broken   bread, 


.132 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


and  to  drink  of  this  cup,  in  remembrance  of 
Him;  adding  these  promises,  first,  that  His 
body  was  offered  and  broken  on  the  cross  for 
me,  and  His  blood  shed  for  me,  as  certainly  as  I 
see  with  my  eyes  the  bread  of  the  Lord  broken 
for  me,  and  the  cup  communicated  to  me :  and 
further,  that  He  feeds  and  nourishes  my  soul  to 
everlasting  life,  with  His  crucified  body  and  shed 
blood,  as  assuredly  as  I  receive  from  the  hands 
of  the  minister  and  taste  with  my  mouth  the 
bread  and  cup  of  the  Lord,  as  certain  signs  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

''Quest.  76.  What  is  it  then  to  eat  the  crucified 
body  and  drink  the  shed  blood  of  Christ  ? 

"Alts.  It  is  not  only  to  embrace  with  a  believ- 
ing heart  all  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
and  thereby  to  obtain  the  pardon  of  sin  and  life 
eternal ;  but  also,  beside  that,  to  become  more 
and  more  united  to  His  sacred  body,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  both  in  Christ  and  in 
us ;  so  that  we,  although  Christ  is  in  heaven 
and  we  on  earth,  are,  notwithstanding,  'flesh 
of  His  flesh  and  bone  of  His  bone ;'  and  that 
we  live  and  are  governed  forever  by  one  Spirit, 
as  members  of  the  same  body  are  by  one  soul. 

"Quest,  y'j.  Where  has  Christ  promised  that 
He  will  as  certainly  feed  and  nourish  believers 
with  His  body  and  blood,  as  they  eat  of  this 
broken  bread  and  drink  of  this  cup  ? 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  j^^ 

''Ans.  In  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  which 
is  thus  expressed:  'The  Lord  Jesus,  in  the 
same  night  in  which  He  was  betrayed,  took 
bread,'  etc.  (i  Cor.  xi.  23-26;  Matt.  xxvi.  26; 
Heb.  ix.  20). 

"  This  promise  is  repeated  by  the  holy  Apostle 
Paul,  where  he  says,  '  The  cup  of  blessing  which 
we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  ?  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  for  we, 
being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body; 
because  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one 
bread'  (i  Cor.  x.  16,  17). 

''Quest.  78.  Do  then  the  bread  and  wine  be- 
come the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ? 

*'Ans.  Not  at  all ;  but  as  the  water  in  baptism 
is  not  changed  into  the  blood  of  Christ,  neither 
is  the  washing  away  of  sin  itself,  being  only  the 
sign  and  confirmation  thereof  appointed  of  God  ; 
so  the  bread  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  changed 
into  the  very  body  of  Christ,  though,  agreeably 
to  the  nature  and  properties  of  sacraments,  it  is 
called  the  body  of  Christ  Jesus. 

''Quest.  79.  Why  then  doth  Christ  call  the 
bread  His  body,  and  the  cup  His  blood,  or  the 
new  covenant  in  his  blood ;  and  Paul  the  '  com- 
munion of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ'  ? 

"Ans.  Christ  speaks  thus  not  without  great 
reason,  namely,  not  only  thereby  to  teach  us. 


134 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


that  as  bread  and  wine  support  this  temporal 
hfe,  so  His  crucified  body  and  shed  blood  are 
the  true  meat  and  drink  whereby  our  souls  are 
fed  to  eternal  life  ;  but  more  especially  by  these 
visible  signs  and  pledges  to  assure  us  that  we 
are  as  really  partakers  of  His  true  body  and 
blood  (by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost)  as 
we  receive  by  the  mouths  of  our  bodies  these 
holy  signs  in  remembrance  of  Him ;  and  that 
all  His  sufferings  and  obedience  are  as  cer- 
tainly ours,  as  if  we  had  in  our  own  persons 
suffered  and  made  satisfaction  for  our  sins  to 
God. 

'■'Quest.  80.  What  difference  is  there  between 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Popish  mass? 

"Ans.  The  Lord's  Supper  testifies  to  us  that 
we  have  a  full  pardon  of  all  sin  by  the  only 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  He  Himself  has 
once  accomplished  on  the  cross  ;  and  that  we 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  are  ingrafted  into  Christ, 
who,  according  to  His  human  nature,  is  now  not 
on  earth,  but  in  heaven,  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  His  Father,  and  will  there  be  worshiped  by 
us :  but  the  mass  teacheth  that  the  living  and 
the  dead  have  not  the  pardon  of  sins,  through 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  unless  Christ  is  also 
daily  offered  for  them  by  the  priests ;  and  fur- 
ther, that  Christ  is  bodily  under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine,  and  therefore  is  to  be  worshiped 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  i^e 

in  them  f  so  that  the  mass,  at  bottom,  Is  nothing 
else  than  a  denial  of  the  one  sacrifice  and  suffer- 
ings of  Jesus  Christ,  and  an  accursed  idolatry." 
On  the  first  of  these  answers  Ursinus  has  a 
long  exposition,  to  which  we  refer  the  reader.-j- 
For  the  benefit  of  those  who  do  not  possess 
this  work,  we  append  the  following  extracts : 

"  It  Is  called  the  Lord's  Supper,  from  the  cir- 
cumstance of  Its  first  Institution.  .  .  .  Paul  calls 
it  the  Lords  Tabic.  It  is  also  called  a  covenant 
or  assembly,  from  the  fact  that  In  the  celebration 
of  this  supper  there  must  be  some,  whether  few 
or  many,  that  meet  together  for  this  purpose. 
.  .  .  This  sacrament,  therefore,  consists  in  the 
rite  and  the  promise  annexed  to  it,  or  in  the 
signs  and  the  things  signified.  The  rite  or  signs 
are  the  bread  which  is  broken  and  the  wine 
which  is  poured  out  and  drunk.  The  things 
signified  are  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood 
of  Christ  which  are  eaten  and  drunk,  or  our 
union  with  Christ  by  faith,  by  which  we  are 
made  partakers  of  Christ  and  all  His  benefits, 
so  that  we  derive  from  Him  everlasting  life,  as 
the  branches  draw  their  life  from  the  vine.  We 
are  assured  of  this  our  union  and  communion 
with  Christ  by  the  analogy  which  there  is  bc- 

*  In  canone  missae  et  de  consecrat.  distinct.      2  Concil.  Trid.,  Sess. 

13.15- 

■}•  We  sincerely  recommend  this  invalual^le  "  Commentary  of  Ur- 
sinus," not  only  to  young  ministers,  but  to  all  our  Church  members. 
No  family  should  be  without  it.  It  is  a  large  royal  octavo  volume  of 
658  pages,  full  of  instruction  for  bo^h  young  and  old. 


136  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

tvveen  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  and  also 
by  the  promise  which  is  joined  to  the  sign." 
[pp.  ?>77^  378.] 

The  Design  of  the  Lord's  Supper. — It  was 
intended  to  be  "a  confirmation  of  our  faith,  or 
a  most  sure  proof  of  our  union  and  communion 
with  Christ,  who  feeds  us  with  His  body  and  blood 
unto  everlasting  life,  as  truly  as  we  receive 
these  signs  from  the  hands  of  the  minister. 
This  object  is  obtained  by  all  those  who  receive 
these  signs  in  true  faith :  for  we  so  receive  these 
signs  from  the  hands  of  the  minister,  as  if  the 
Lord  Himself  gave  them  unto  us  with  His  own 
hand.  It  is  in  this  way  that  Christ  is  said  to 
have  baptized  more  disciples  than  John,  when 
He,  nevertheless,  did  it  through  His  disciples" 
(John  iv.  i).    [p   379.] 

In  the  exposition  of  Question  ']6, — 

"This  eating  is  that  communion  which  we 
have  with  Christ,  of  which  the  Scriptures  speak, 
and  of  which  we  make  confession  in  the  Creed, 
which  consists  in  a  spiritual  union  with  Ou^ist, 
as  members  with  the  head,  and  branches  with 
the  vine.  Christ  teaches  this  eating  of  His 
flesh  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John,  and  con- 
firms it  in  the  Supper  by  external  signs.  It  is  in 
this  sense  that  the  ancient  fathers,  such  as  Au- 
gustine, Eusebius,  Nazianzen,  Hilary,  and  others, 
explain  the  eating  of  Christ's  flesh.  ...  It  is 
plain,  therefore,  that  neither  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  which  the  Papists  advocate, 
nor  a  corporal  presence  of  Christ  and  the  eadng 
of  His  body  in  the  bread  with  the  mouth,  which 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  i,^ 

many  defend,  can  be  established  from  the  lan- 
guage which  is  employed  in  reference  to  the 
Slipper  which  promises  the  eating  of  Christ's 
body."    [p.  382.]    . 

(On  this  subject,  as  well  as  other  points  closely 
connected  with  it,  see  Appendix  H  for  a  mas- 
terly and  truly  edifying  as  well  as  instructive 
exposition.) 

The  Mercersburg  theory,  It  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  say,  proceeds  on  an  entirely  different 
system,  being  ruled  by  its  theory  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. As  we  have  no  system  of  theology  writ- 
ten out,  as  yet,  from  our  brethren  who  differ 
from  us  on  all  the  other  points  which  have  been 
under  review,  and  very  little  has  been  said  in 
a  direct  way  by  them  on  this  subject,  it  is,  of 
course,  not  very  easy  to  say  what  their  exact 
views  are.  But  the  Liturgy  contains  points  of 
such  wide  departure  from  the  Palatinate  and  all 
other  Reformed  forms  on  the  Lord's  Supper, 
uses  language  so  singularly  strange  and  un- 
usual, that  our  ears  cannot  but  be  pained  by 
the  great  change.  Thus,  for  Instance,  the  well- 
known  and  hallowed  phrases,  "  through  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ" — "  His  broken  body  and  shed 
blood" — are  not  found  there.  Why  not?  Dr. 
Nevin,  in  his  "Vindication"   (p.  92),  says  that 

the  Liturgy  "  teaches  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
12* 


I  ^8  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


o 


more  than  an  outward  sign,  and  more  than  a 
mere  calHng  to  mind  of  our  Saviour's  death 
as  something  past  and  gone," — intimating  that 
those  in  our  Church  whom  he  opposes  did  not 
hold,  with  the  Catechism,  that  it  was  7Jiore  than 
"  an  outward  sign."  He  goes  on  to  say :  "  It 
[the  new  theory]  teaches  that  the  value  of 
Christ's  sacrifice  never  dies,  but  is  perennially 
continued  in  the  power  of  His  life  ;  .  .  .  the  un- 
dying power  of  Christ's  life  is  there  in  the 
transaction,  for  all  who  take  part  in  it  by  faith." 
This  grace  we  are  to  app-ropriate,  "  and  to  bring 
it  before  God  (the  '  memorial  of  the  blessed  sac- 
rifice of  His  Son')  as  the  only  ground  of  our 
trust  and  confidence  in  His  presence"  (p.  93). 
Without  this  (mind,  the  "  perennial,"  the  "  me- 
morial sacrifice'),  he  says,  we  should  have  no 
sacraments — we  should  plunge  into  the  "  full 
abyss  of  Rationalism." 

Well,  then,  the  whole  Protestant  Church 
for  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  (except  the 
fraction  of  Puseyites  and  ultra-Lutherans)  are 
and  have  been  "  plunged"  in  this  abyss  :  that's 
all !  Every  thing  for  Dr.  N.  looks  towards  a 
sacrifice ;  and  although  he  repels  the  possible 
charge  of  holding  anything  so  offensive  as  "  the 
Roman  Catholic  so-called  sacrifice  of  the  mass," 
and  although  we  are  quite  ready  to  accept  his 
disclaimer,   yet  he  must  pardon  us  for  saying 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  j,g 

that  the  entire  drift  of  the  teaching  on  this  and 
co-related  subjects  points  to  something  so  hke 
that  offensive  thing  that  we  wonder  that  a  man 
of  such  acumen  as  Dr.  N.  should  not  avoid 
even  the  "very  appearance  of  evil."  We  are 
the  more  readily  confirmed  in  this  belief  from 
the  fact  that  at  least  one  of  our  foremost  men, 
who  stood  in  the  new  theory  years  ago,  was 
most  deeply  exercised  on  this  very  subject  of 
the  Romish  mass,  and  earnestly  desired  that  he 
might  be  able  to  believe  it.  We  doubt  not  that 
others  have  been  exercised  in  the  same  way, 
and  that  their  wish  culminated  or  will  yet  cul- 
minate in  its  realization,  in  one  form  or  another. 

The  idea  of  a  sacrifice  is  there,  and  in  a  way 
that  must  grate  upon  every  Protestant  ear; 
and  all  the  harsh  epithets  of  "  rationalism, 
spiritualism,  and  puritanism"  are  idle  as  the 
wind,  and  simply  prove  that  those  who  use 
these  epithets  are  fully  aware  that  they  are 
breasting  the  mighty  current  of  evangelical 
Protestantism  at  fearful  odds.  The  late  meet- 
inof  of  the  Evaneelical  Alliance  has  told  them 
that  there  are  a  unity  and  power  in  our  ''  so- 
called  Protestantism"  (!)  which,  thank  God, 
show  that  it  is  not  yet  dead,  albeit  its  funeral 
dirge  has  been  sung  never  so  often  in  doleful 
and  whining  tones. 

To  show  what  are  the  views  of  such  a  man 


140  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

as  Dr.  Dorner  on  the  sacramental  form  in  the 
Liturgy,  we  give  the  following  calm  and  con- 
siderate words  as  they  are  found  in  his  "  Litur- 
gical Conflict :" 

"But  in  the  form  for  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which  otherwise  contains  much  that  is  beau- 
tiful, the  idea  of  a  sacrifice  presented  by  the 
communicants  stands  forth  in  a  manner  which 
is  forced,  and  which  must  be  offensive  to 
an  evangelical  ear.  It  is  not  according  to  Cal- 
vin, as  N.  supposes,  but  to  the  Greek  Church, 
that  God  is  implored  to  'send  down  upon 
the  elements  the  powerful  benediction  of  His 
Holy  Spirit,  that  they  may  be  set  apart  from 
a  common  to  a  sacred  and  mystical  use,  and 
exhibit  and  represent  with  true  effect  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  so 
that  in  the  use  of  them  we  may  be  made, 
through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  par- 
take really  and  truly  of  His  blessed  life,  whereby 
only  we  can  be  saved  from  death  and  raised  to 
immortality  at  the  last  day.'  (Nothing  is  said 
of  the  death  of  Christ.)  On  p.  1 76  of  the  new 
Liturgy,  the  chief  point  is  :  '  Cleanse  our  minds, 
we  beseech  Thee,  by  the  inspiration  of  Thy 
Holy  Spirit,  that  we.  Thy  redeemed  people, 
drawing  near  unto  Thee  in  these  holy  mys- 
teries, with  a  true  heart  and  undefiled  con- 
science, in  full  assurance  of  faith,  may  offer 
unto  Thee  mi-  acceptable  sacrifice  in  righteous- 
ness;'  and  (on  p.  181)  it  is  required  that  this 
grace  shall  be  appropriated,  and  that  ike  vie- 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  j^I 

mortal  of  the  blessed  sacrifice  of  His  Son    be 
offered  unto  God. 

"All  this  shows  that  the  Revised  Liturgy  con- 
tains many  things  which  from  the  stand-point 
of  the  Evangelical  Church  must  be  pronounced 
objectionable  and  erroneous.  Other  things, 
even  though  they  may  admit  of  an  evangelical 
sense,  are  expressed  in  strange  terms,  and 
should  have  been  avoided  to  prevent  natural 
offense.  This  is  doubly  necessary  when  the 
non-evangelical  sense  is  the  more  obvious  one 
and  seeks  to  prop  itself  upon  an  entire  theo- 
logical system." 

Here  now  we  lay  down  our  pen.  God  is  our 
judge  how  much  conflict  it  has  cost  us  to  use  it 
at  all.  That  introductory  Letter  was  the  solemn, 
decisive  monitor  and  prompter  to  this  under- 
taking. If  any  of  our  brethren  shall  feel  tempted 
to  deal  harshly  with  us,  we  have  made  up  our 
mind  to  bear  it,  and  in  no  case  to  return  railing 
for  railing.  We  desire  peace,  and  now  in  the 
eventide  of  our  life  more  than  ever  we  desire  to 
pursue  It.  But  we  know  that  In  the  present  state 
of  thlno-s  amonor  us  Truth  Is  in  order  to  Peace. 
We  fiFmly  believe  that  that  truth  has  been  In  a 
measure  forsaken  by  some  of  our  brethren,  and, 
unless  they  can  honestly  and  conscientiously  re- 
turn to  the  truth  from  which  they  have  swerved, 
there  caii  be  no  peace.  It  Is  not  we,  but  they,  who 
have  brought  this  trouble  into  the  Reformed 


142  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

Church.  So  we  firmly  believe  ;  and  they  them- 
selves admit  it.  They  admit  that  their  theory 
on  all  the  points  brought  forward  in  this  book 
is  in  many  respects  at  variance,  if  not  in  direct 
conflict,  with  the  general  faith  of  the  evanoei- 
ical  Protestant  CJiurch.  From  the  bottom  of 
our  heart  we  love  all  Christ's  true  followers, 
whether  found  in  this  or  that  portion  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  whether  Protestant  or  Roman  Catho- 
lic, for  God  has  His  people  also  in  this  last. 
But  in  the  Protestant  Church  is  our  ecclesiastical 
home.  In  the  Reformed  branch  of  It  were  we 
born  and  reared  under  the  prayers  and  pious 
teachings  of  godly  parents.  In  it  were  their 
ancestors  reared,  some  of  them  in  the  honored 
ranks  of  the  mlnl^ry  and  the  civil  service, 
others  in  the  more  humble  and  retired  walks 
of  life  ;  but  all,  as  the  precious  ancestral  record 
has  touchlngly  recorded  it,  "  were  a  worthy, 
pious  stock,  true  to  the  Church  of  their  fathers, 
and  true  to  their  country  in  hours  of  trial 
and  sorrow,"  My  heart  softens  at  the  words  as 
I  read  the  certificate  from  the  tremblino-  hand  of 
the  venerable  Westphallan  pastor,  given  to  my 
revered  father  when,  more  than  a  hundred  years 
ago,  he  was  about  to  leave  his  kindred  for  this 
Western  world,  which  reads  thus  :  "  And  may 
the  God  of  your  fathers  go  with  and  bless  you, 
and  make  you  a  blessing  in  the  New  World ; 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  j^^ 

and  may  you  never  forget  that  their  name  has 
a  good  sound  here  {eincii  gittcn  Klang)  in 
Westphaha.  Honorable  and  true  before  man, 
devout  and  humble  before  God,  earnest  and 
devotedly  attached  to  the  Reformed  Church,  in 
which  the  whole  family  of  your  ancestors  seem 
to  have  been  conspicuous  without  bringing 
reproach  upon  their  name, — follow  such  exam- 
ples, and  let  the  name  of  your  fathers  not  be 
dishonored  in  the  Abendland,  but  may  children's 
children  rise  up  and  bless  it.  Be  true  to  your 
country,  be  true  to  the  pure  faith  of  your 
Church  in  head,  heart,  and  life,  and  you  will  be 
true  X.O  your  adopted  country  ajid your  God P' 

By  God's  grace  I  have,  though  very,  very  im- 
perfectly, followed  this  pious  counsel  given  to 
my  parent  and  through  him  to  me.  I  love  my 
Church,  her  pure  martyr- faith  and  her  worship. 
This  Church  Is  dear  to  me  as  the  apple  of  my 
eye.  My  labors  and  toils  In  my  better  years 
have  been  cheerfully  given  to  her.  I  have 
made  no  "sacrifices"  worth  speaking  of;  I  can 
boast  of  no  great  talents  or  learning ;  I  have 
performed  no  great  deeds.  And  yet  she  has 
honored  me  in  many  ways,  and  in  the  forty-nine 
years  of  my  imperfectly  performed  ministerial 
service  I  have  shared  as  much — nay,  more — of 
the  good  will,  the  love  and  respect  of  my  min- 
isterial brethren  and  the  membership  at  large, 


144  ^"^-^  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

as  any  man  ought  to  desire.  I  have,  therefore, 
no  ends  to  seek — no  dissatisfied  feelings  which 
might  incite  me  to  oppose  any  portion  of 
my  brethren  on  personal  grounds.  This  has 
been  alleged  against  others,  although,  I  must 
say,  very  unjustly,  so  far  as  I  can  see.  Cer- 
tainly it  is  not  so  in  my  case.  The  Church  has 
ever  dealt  gently  with  me,  and  often  have  I 
been  humbled  most  deeply  by  it.  She  has  my 
undying  gratitude  and  love.  I  have  nothing 
more  to  look  forward  to  at  my  time  of  life,  and 
I  have  no  desire  to  be  anything  else  than  a 
private  in  the  ranks,  performing  quietly  such 
official  duties  as  come  to  hand.  But  as  I  sol- 
emnly believe,  so  have  I  spoken,  not  to  wound, 
but,  if  possible,  to  heal.  My  days  will  soon  be 
numbered  ;  and  when  the  number  is  full,  and  my 
head  shall  rest  upon  the  death-bed  pillow,  I 
am  persuaded  that  the  truth  which  then,  as  now, 
will  prove  a  balm  and  a  cordial  in  my  dying  hour, 
will  be  the  truth  which,  however  feebly,  I  have 
sought  to  state  and  defend  in  these  pages: 
"  That  I,  with  body  and  soul,  am  not  my  own, 
but  belong  unto  my  faithful  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  who  with  His  precious  blood  hath 
FULLY  satisfied  FOR  ALL  MY  SINS."  This  is  my 
hope,  my  only  trust,  my  well-grounded  assur- 
ance. Here  I  stand.  I  cannot  otherwise. 
So  HELP  me  God.     Amen. 


APPENDICES. 


13 


APPENDICES. 


THE    FIRST    TEN    THOUSAND    DOLLAR    GIFT    IN   THE 
REFORMED   CHURCH. 

Reference  having  been  made,  in  the  "  Letter"*  which  precedes  this 
volume,  to  the  first  ten  thousand  dollar  donation  which  was  given  to 
the  institutions  of  our  Church  by  Mr.  Daniel  Kieffer,  of  Berks  County, 
Pennsylvania,  it  seems  a  fitting  occasion  to  refer  to  the  circumstances 
which  led  to  the  application,  without  laying  any  stress  upon  them  or 
explaining  them,  leaving  the  latter  to  the  psychologist  if  deemed  of 
sufficient  importance. 

When  the  special  synod  held  in  Lebanon  in  the  winter  of  1843 
had  unanimously  elected  the  Rev.  Dr.  F.  W.  Krummacher  as  German 
Professor  in  the  Seminary  at  Mercersburg,  Dr.  Hoffeditz  and  myself 
were  appointed  commissioners  to  convey  and  more  fully  to  explain  the 
call  to  that  eminent  man.  There  had,  however,  been  no  adequate 
provision  made  for  his  support.  Ten  years  before  (in  1832)  the  first 
professorial  endowment  of  ten  thousand  dollars  had  dwindled  down, 
by  losses  and  otherwise,  to  several  thousand  dollars  less  than  that 
amount,  which  led  to  my  appointment  as  an  agent  to  make  up  this  de- 
ficiency. The  plan  was  to  raise  it  by  fifty-dollar  subscriptions,  which 
was  at  that  time  thought  to  be  a  very  respectable  and  rather  unusual 
sum.  Coming  to  the  well-to-do  rural  charge  of  my  friend,  the  Rev.  J. 
C.  Bucher,  in  Middletown  Valley,  Maryland,  that  noble  people  responded 
so  generously,  under  the  leadership  of  their  zealous  pastor,  that  the 
amount  needed  was  made  up  before  I  had  canvassed  one-half  of  the 
pastorate.  Full  of  the  idea  that  we  ought  to  have  another  professor- 
ship endowed,  and  that  that  should  be  a  German  one,  I  took  the 
responsibility,  before  I  had  time  to  receive  any  official  sanction,  to 
commence  the  raising  of  funds  for  a  German  professorship,  for  which, 
if  I  remember  rightly,  nearly  two  thousand  dollars  more  were  raised 
in  that  vicinity,  which,  as  I  was  then  providentially  interrupted  in  my 
agency,  was  prosecuted  by  another  for  a  short  time,  adding  a  thousand 
or  two  more  to  the  subscription. 

This,  therefore,  was  all  the  provision  which  had  been  made  for  a 


♦  The  reference  here  alluded  to  is  omitted  in  the  Letter,  to  save  space. 

>47 


148 


APPENDICES. 


German  professorship ;  and  even  this  amount,  thus  subscribed  and  col- 
lected, had,  no  doubt  from  dire  necessity  (for  those  were  times  when 
funds  were  generally  low  in  our  church  treasuries),  been  diverted  to 
other  uses.  At  the  special  synod  referred  to,  this  state  of  unprepared- 
ness  to  support  such  a  man  as  Krummacher  was  referred  to ;  but  there 
were  brethren  who  were  so  zealous  to  have  the  author  of  "  Elisha  the 
Tishbite"  among  us,  that  they  gave  assurances  of  an  overflowing 
treasury  in  thirty  days'  time.  It  was  tacitly  understood  that,  as  an 
earnest,  ten  thousand  should  be  pledged  before  the  commissioners  left 
for  Germany. 

The  commissioners  had  fixed  to  meet  on  the  first  of  April,  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  there  they  were  to  hear  from  the  brethren  who  M'ere  so 
ardent  in  Lebanon,  of  the  success  of  the  pledges  given.  But  Dr. 
Hoffeditz,  it  was  found  after  several  days  of  anxious  waiting,  could 
not  leave  home  for  a  month.  Nor  was  there  a  single  response  from 
any  one  in  regard  to  the  ten  thousand  dollars.  That  night  was  an 
anxious,  sleepless  night  under  a  dear  brother's  roof.  Now  the  thought 
came  to  my  mind  to  single  out  ten  brethren  who,  with  myself  included, 
should  each  give  or  raise  one  thousand  dollars  within  thirty  days.  But 
this  seemed  a  doubtful  measure.  Then  there  came  "  airy  castles"  one 
after  another,  only  to  vanish  again.  At  last  I  laid  hold  of  a  remark 
which  the  Rev.  J.  C.  Guldin  once  had  made  to  me :  "  Some  time  when 
you  go  to  your  native  place,  Reading,  go  to  see  Daniel  Kieffer,  in  Oley 
(about  eight  miles  away).  He  is  a  pious  man,  unmarried,  is  blessed 
with  earthly  means,  lives  very  plainly,  but  I  think  you  could  obtain 
perhaps  a  handsome  donation  for  the  Church  from  him.  He  gets  your 
paper,  esteems  you,"  etc. 

But  I  had  never  seen  him,  and  the  fact  that  he  was  a  plain  farmer  in 
Berks  County  seemed  not  to  promise  very  much.  But  the  thought, 
though  once  and  again  suppressed,  would  return  again, — Go  and  see 
him.  I  so  resolved.  But  the  morning  light  soon  dispelled  the  waking 
vision  of  the  night.  Instead  of  going  to  Reading,  I  went  directly 
homeward  to  spend  the  night  with  my  good  friend,  Judge  Bucher,  at 
Harrisburg.  ^Iy  dolorous  plaint  was  confided  to  his  ears — schemes 
and  all.  "  I  will  be  one  of  the  ten,"  he  promptly  replied  ;  "  but  sup- 
pose you  first  follow  out  your  rejected  idea  of  seeing  Mr.  Kieffer." 
But  I  had  lost  all  heart  for  it  by  this  time.  In  the  morning,  at  table, 
he  related,  in  presence  of  his  family,  my  distressed  state  of  mind,  and 
that  I  was  fully  resolved  not  to  set  sail  for  Europe  unless  the  sum  named 
was  guaranteed.  All  joined  in  urging  me  to  go  to  Reading.  At  last  I 
brought  forward  the  expense  of  a  doubtful  journey,  whilst  yet  there 
was  within  me  a  faint  lingering  hope  of  possible  success.  After  some 
time,  the  Judge  remarked,  "  There  is  the  stage  at  the  door  which  I  have 
ordered,  and  the  fare  to  Reading  is  paid — and  you  will  go."  I  was 
really  glad  of  it,  as  things  now  came  in  this  shape.  Dr.  Bucher  was 
then  the  pastor  in  that  city,  who  at  once  favored  the  visit.  We  drove 
to  the  unassuming  farm-house,  were  cordially  received,  and  in  the 
evening  opened  up  the  case  to  our  friend.  It  came  as  a  surprise  to  the 
good  man  that  we  should  wish  so  large  a  sum  from  one  individual. 
But  the  case  was  a  plain  one,  and  Dr.  Bucher  knows  well  how  to  state 
such  a  case,  for  he  was  the  Apollo  of  the  occasion,  and  we  left  him  to 


APPENDICES.  I4Q 

think  over  it  during  the  night.  Early  in  the  morning  we  found  him 
attending  to  his  farm  duties,  and  met  him  near  the  house.  Dr.  Bucher 
inquired  at  once  whether  he  had  made  up  his  mind  on  the  subject ; 
to  which,  with  an  earnest  look,  he  replied,  "  I  have  ]irayed  over  the 
matter,  dear  brethren,  and  by  God's  blessing  I  will  do  what  you  have 
asked  of  me." 

And  so  he  did,  although,  through  tlie  intervention  of  certain  meddle- 
some parties,  the  good  man  was  led  to  withhold  the  gift  for  a  time. 
But,  through  the  considerate  and  prudent  measures  of  Dr.  Bucher,  it  all 
came  right  in  the  end.  And  thus  was  the  first  donation  of  ten  thousand 
dollars  obtained  in  the  Reformed  Church,  and  thus  was  a  plain  farmer 
of  Berks  County  the  instrument  of  founding  the  German  (or  second) 
professorship,  which  it  is  hoped  will  some  day  be  occupied,  as  it  was 
intended  it  should  be,  by  a  professor  who  will  give  instruction  in  the 
Seminary  in  that  language.  This  statement  I  have  thought  due  to  the 
memoiy  of  the  man  who  gave  his  money  for  a  "  German  Professor- 
ship." 


WHAT   THE   NEW   THEORY   CLAIMS   TO    HOLD. 

As  a  further  proof  that  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  school  do  not  pretend  to 
hold  the  accepted  and  universally  received  doctrines  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  or  even  the  generally  received  truths  of  Protestantism,  we  sub- 
join the  following,  out  of  many  other  declarations.  Let  the  reader  say 
what  we  are  to  think  of  those  who  over  and  over  again  tell  us  that  the 
new  theories  "  imply  no  change  in  Reformed  doctrine  and  worship." 
To  Dr.  Nevin  must,  at  least,  be  accorded  the  merit  of  speaking  hon- 
estly and  without  reserve.  We  shall  not  say  more  in  regard  to  these 
extracts,  but  throw  in  a  few  remarks  of  our  own,  in  brackets. 

"  With  all  our  respect  for  the  sixteenth  century,  there  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  be  bound  slavishly  by  all  its  opinions  and  judgments 
[not  at  all,  only  that  as  Rt:fonned  we  have  no  right,  so  long  as  we  are 
in  that  Church,  to  cast  its  "  opinions  and  judgments"  overl)oard]  ;  no 
reason  .why  we  should  not  see  and  acknowledge  its  defects,  where  they 
may  appear  ]dainly  to  exist."  [Appear  to  exist  for  Tuhom?  Shall  every 
man's  private  judgment  pit  itself  against  the  Church,  as,  for  instance, 
Rationalism  did  in  Germany  in  the  last  century,  changing  the  hymn- 
books,  catechisms,  etc.,  to  suit  "  the  wants  of  the  enlightened  age"  ?J 
— A^eviii's  Liturg.  Quest.,  p.  40. 

"  The  conflict  in  the  case,  as  already  said,  is  a  conflict  of  theological 
systems;  ...  a  controversy  about  doctrines  and  articles  of  faith,  that 
strikes  far  beyond  the  German  Reformed  Church,  into  the  life  of  the 

I?* 


1 50  APPENDICES. 

entire  Protestantism  of  this  land'''  [doctrines  and  articles  of  faith, — 
mark  this, — and  not  merely  those  of  our  own  Reformed  Church,  but  all 
Protestautisni\. — Xiroin''s  Viitd.,  p.  80. 

"  It  is  to  be  freely  admitted,  moreover,  that  there  lay  in  the  distin- 
guishing spirit  of  the  Reformed  Confession,  as  such,  from  the  beginning, 
a  tendency  in  opposition  to  the  constraint  of  fixed  religious  rites  and 
ceremonies,  which  could  hardly  fail  to  exert  an  injurious  influence  on 
any  work  of  this  sort.  It  belongs,  as  we  all  know,  to  the  Reformed 
Church,  to  represent  that  side  of  the  Christian  life  in  which  the  inward, 
\.he.free,  the  spiritual,  in  religion,  are  asserted  against  the  authority  of 
the  merely  outward  in  evei-y  view.  Such  is  her  historical  vocation ; 
such  is  her  genius." — The  Liturg.  Quest.,  p.  41.  [True,  every  word  of 
it.  The  Reformed  Church  (more  than  the  Lutheran)  was  ever  de- 
cidedly opposed  to  the  trammels  of  "  fixed  religious  rites  and  cere- 
monies." She  emphasized  rather  that  side  which  is  practical  and 
"  subjective"  (so  called).  That  was  and  is  her  genius — that  her  "  his- 
torical vocation."  \VTiy  shall  it  now,  therefore,  be  ignored  and  cast 
out  as  vile  and  anathema  ?'[ 

"  The  idea  of  a  resuscitated  theology,  then,  in  our  circumstances, 
requires  something  more  than  a  simple  return  to  the  theology  either  of 
the  seventeenth  or  sixteenth  century." — A'evin,  Merc.  Rev.,  July, 
1868,  p.  360.  [But  does  it  require  us  to  go  back  to  the  time  when 
priests,  bishops,  and  popes  scandalized  religion  and  morality  (accord- 
ing to  their  own  historians)  and  resuscitate  our  theology  from  that 
period  ?] 

"  But  this  is  just  what  repristination  means  here,  whether  on  the  Lu- 
theran side  or  on  the  Reformed  side.  Let  it  be  atiathema  vu^ranatha, 
then,  we  say,  on  both  sides." — Merc.  Rev.,  p.  363.  [An  inspired  Apos- 
tle pronounced  the  Lord's  anathema — upon  whom  ?  Upon  those  who 
hated,  i.e.,  did  not  love,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Is  it  competent  for  any 
mortal  man  now  to  hurl  that  curse  against  those  who  do  sincerely 
aim  to  love  and  honor  the  Lord  Jesus,  although  they  may  not  be  will- 
ing to  cast  away  the  birthright  of  the  Reformation  ?  We  do  not  hold 
to  a  blind  fettering  of  the  spirit  to  every  formulated  dogma,  as  such,  as 
this  may  have  been  held  in  the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  century.  But 
as  to  the  essential  truths  of  that  period,  no  unhallowed  rude  hand  may 
violently  tear  them  asunder,  in  the  style  of  the  pope.] 

"  This  theology  [the  Mercersburg]  has  never  professed  to  be  of  the 
satne  type  with  that  around  it." — Merc.  Rev.,  July,  1867,  p.  383. 

"  Our  Christological  theology  is  distinctive.  Let  all  understand  this 
fully  a7td  finally,  and  then  save  themselves  the  useless  pains  of  meas 
uring  it  by  their  own." — p.  383.  [This  is  fully  understood.  We  know 
of  no  Protestant,  or,  for  that  matter,  any  other  theology,  that  is  just  like 
it.  It  is  a  new  type,  but,  as  with  wine,  we  think  the  old  is  better  than 
the  new.] 

"  Thus  it  is  to  the  honor  of  our  theology  that  on  the  one  hand  it  is 
charged  with  a  backward  tendency  towards  Rome,  and  on  the  other 
hand  //  is  characterized  as  a  bold  and  free  movement  forwatd  beyond  the 
traditionary  bounds  of  all  that  is  called  orthodoxy  \-n  Protestantism." 
— p.  400. 

[This,  again,  is  both  true  and  honest.     The  charge  that  this  new 


APPENDICES.  ,  r  I 

theory  is  "  a  backward  tendency  towards  Rome"  is  thus  not  only  ac- 
knowledged, but  is  deemed  an  honor.  And  so,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  acknowledged  to  be  "  a  bold  and  free  movement  beyond  all  that  is 
called  oithodoxy  in  Protestantism."  Let  us,  then,  have  no  more  denial 
on  this  point  by  the  disciples  of  the  new  theory.  The  master  is  above 
the  disciple.] 

"  Our  opponents,  comprising  four-fifths,  if  not  nine-tenths,  of  the 
ministry  and  laity  belonging  to  the  Reformed  family  of  Churches,  an- 
swer in  the  negative,  and  maintain  that  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation is  neither  Reformed  nor  Protestant,  but  Romish." — Merc. 
Jiev.,  April,  i86S,  p.  182. 

"  If  it  be  so  that  Protestantism  shall  stand  the  test  in  the  arbitrament 
of  God  in  history,  as  being  substantially  the  main  bearer  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  it  is  plain  that  it  cannot  do  so  on  the  sole  basis  on  ivhich  it 
started,  or  on  the  basis  of  what  it  has  since  been  or  now  is,  but  alone 
on  the  basis  of  what  it  has  the  p07ver  of  yet  becoming^ — ]>.  394.  [  On  the 
sole  basis  on  which  it  started.  Protestantism  cannot  stand  the  test,  so 
Dr.  Nevin  thinks.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  he  has  no  faith  in  it  as 
it  now  stands,  "  but  alone  on  the  basis  of  what  it  has  the  power  of  yet 
becoming."  We  must  therefore  still  wait  to  see  what  "  the  things  be 
that  are  yet  to  come."  All  is  yet  a  sandy  bottom — all  uncertainty ; 
no  realizing  conviction  of  the  passage  in  Hebrews,  xiii.  9,  especially 
after  the  German  rendering:  £s  ist  ein  kostlich  Ding  dass das  Ilcrzfest 
•werde.  Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  when  young  men  are  taught  that 
Protestantism,  on  the  basis  on  which  it  started  and  on  which  it  has  since 
been  or  now  is,  is  untenable,  and  that  we  must  therefore  look  else- 
where,— is  it  any  wonder,  after  teaching  them  that  they  must  go  back- 
ward (back  of  the  Reformation) — back  to  the  middle  ages,  and  then 
"  forward  beyond  the  traditionary  bounds  of  all  that  is  called  ortho- 
doxy in  Protestantism," — is  it  any  wonder,  we  ask,  that  young  men 
so  taught  should  not  lose  faith  in  Protestantism?  and  what  more 
natural  than  to  catch  at  the  straw  of  Infallibility  which  the  Romish 
Church  throws  out  to  them  ?  You  first  remove  from  under  their  feet 
the  foundation,  and  then  say  to  them,  "  But  don't  you  catch  at  the 
straw;  by-and-by  we  will  perhaps  discover  some  safe  boat  for  us  and 
you!"     That  is  miserable  comfort,  we  should  say.] 

(Appendix  G  contains  some  further  statements  on  this  subject.) 

Whilst  penning  the  foregoing  sentences,  we  were  led  to  refer  to  the 
recent  work  of  that  eminently  great  and  good  man,  who  is  acknowl- 
edged to  have  written  the  ablest  work  on  Systematic  Theology  in 
America, — we  mean  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  of  Princeton.*  We  append 
a  few  extracts  on  the  philosophical  and  theological  aspects  of  the  new 
theory  now  under  consideration,  which  will  show  how  they  strike  such 
a  man  as  Dr.  Hodge  ;  a  man  who  shows,  in  this  learned  work,  that  the 
speculations  of  ancient  and  modern  times  are  well  understood  by  him. 
And  so  also  are  our  new  theories. 


*  Systematic  Theology.     By  Charles  Hodge,  D.D.,  New  York,  1873,  vol.  Hi. 


152 


APPENDICES. 
REGENERATION. 

MODERN   SPECULATIVE   VIEWS    ON    THIS    SUBJECT. 

After  saying  that  modern  speculative  pliilosophy  had  introduced  such 
a  radical  change  in  the  views  entertained  of  the  nature  of  God,  His 
relation  to  the  world,  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
application  of  His  redemption  for  the  salvation  of  men,  that  one  might 
safely  say  that  the  ancient  and  Scrij^tural  forms  of  these  doctrines  were 
superseded,  and  others  introduced  which  could  not  be  understood  unless 
one  understood  their  philosojjhy,  and  that  this  brings  down  the  truths 
of  the  Bible  to  the  form  of  philosophical  dogmas.  Dr.  Hodge  says: 

"  We  cease  to  hear  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  third  person  of  the 
Trinity,  applying  to  men  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ. 
They  teach.  First,  that  there  is  no  dualism  in  man  between  soul  and 
body.  There  is  but  one  life.  The  body  is  the  soul  projecting  itself 
externally.  Without  a  body  there  is  no  soul.  Second,  that  there  is 
no  real  dualism  between  God  and  man.  The  identity  between  God 
and  man  is  the  last  result  of  modern  speculation  ;  and  it  is  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  Christianity.  .  .  .  These  attempts  have  resulted,  in 
some  instances,  in  avowed  Christian  Pantheism,  as  it  is  called;  in 
others,  in  forms  of  doctrine  so  nearly  pantheistic  as  to  be  hardly  dis- 
tinguished from  Pantheism  itself;  and  in  all,  in  a  radical  modification, 
not  only  of  the  theology  of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  her  received 
standards,  but  also  of  the  Scriptural  form  of  Christian  doctrines,  if 
not  of  their  essence.  .  .  .  There  is  no  dualism  in  Christ  as  be- 
tween soul  and  body.  Neither  is  there  any  dualism  between  Divinity 
and  humanity  in  Him.  The  Divine  and  human  in  His  person  are  one 
life.  In  being  the  ideal  or  perfect  man,  He  is  the  true  God.  The 
deification  which  humanity  reached  in  Christ  is  not  a  supernatural  act 
on  the  jjart  of  God  ;  it  is  reached  by  a  natu7-al  process  of  development  in 
His  people,  that  K,the  Church.*  The  soteriology  [the  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion by  Christ]  of  this  system  is  simple.  The  soul  projects  itself  in  the 
body.  They  are  one  life,  but  the  body  may  be  too  much  for  the  soul. 
.  .  So  humanity  as  a  generic  life,  a  form  of  the  life  of  God,  as 
projected  externally  in  the  world  from  Adam  onward,  has  not  devel- 
oped itself  aright.  If  left  unaided,  it  would  not  reach  the  goal,  or 
unfold  itself  as  Divine.  A  new  start,  therefore,  must  be  given  to  it,  a 
new  commencement  made.  This  is  done  by  a  supernatural  intervention 
resulting  in  the  production  of  the  person  of  Christ.  In  Him  Divinity 
assumes  the  fashion  of  a  man — the  existence-form  of  man;  God 
becomes  man,  and  man  is  God.  This  renewed  entrance,  so  to  speak, 
of  God  into  the  world,  this  special  form  of  Divine-human  life,  is  Chrts- 
iiani/y,  which  is  constantly  declared  to  be  '  a  life,'  'the  life  of  Christ,'-j- 


*  The  italicizing  is  our  own,  here  and  onward. 

t  [A  plain  but  pious  and  well-read  member  of  our  Church  said  to  me  some  years 
ago,  "  For  a  whole  year  1  listened  to  the  sermons  of  our  new  pastor,  and  heard  him 


APPENDICES.  IC3 

'a  new  theanthropic  life.'  Men  become  Christians  by  being  par- 
takers of  this  life,  ...  by  union  with  the  Church  and  reception 
of  the  sacraments.*  The  incarnation  of  God  is  continued  in  the 
Church  [is  '  perennial']  ;  and  this  principle  of  '  Divine-human  life' 
descends  from  Christ  to  the  members  of  the  Church,  as  naturally  and 
as  much  by  a  process  of  organic  development,  as  humanity  derived  from 
Ada?n  Pinfolded  itself  in  his  descendants.  Christ,  therefore,  saves  us, 
not  so  much  by  what  He  did  [His  sufferings  and  death,  for  instance],  as 
by  what  He  is.  He  made  no  satisfaction  to  the  Divine  justice;  no 
expiation  for  sin.  .  .  .  There  is,  therefore,  no  justification,  no  real 
pardon  even,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word.  .  .  .  Those  who 
become  partakers  of  this  new  principle  of  life,  which  is  truly  human 
and  truly  Divine,  become  one  with  Christ.  All  the  merit,  righteous- 
ness, excellence,  etc.,  are  our  own.  They  are  subjective  in  us  and 
form  our  character,  just  as  the  nature  derived  from  Adam  was  ours, 
with  all  its  corruptions  and  infirmities. 

"  If  asked  what  is  regeneration  according  to  this  system,  the  proper 
answer  would  probably  be,  that  it  is  an  obsolete  term.  There  is  no 
room  for  the  thing  usually  signified  by  the  word,  and  no  reason  for 
retaining  the  word  itself.  Regeneration  is  a  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  a  distinct  person  or  agent.  But  this  system  in  its  integrity  does  not 
acknowledge  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  distinct  person  or  agent.  And  those 
who  are  constrained  to  make  the  acknowledgment  of  His  personality 
are  evidently  embarrassed  by  the  admission.  What  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Church  ascribe  to  the  Spirit  working  with  the  freedom  of  a  personal 
agent  when  and  where  He  sees  fit,  this  system  attributes  to  the  '  the- 
anthropic life'  of  Christ,  working  as  a  new  force,  according  to  the 
natural  laws  of  development. f 

"  The  impression  made  upon  the  readers  of  the  modem  theologians 
of  this  school  is  that  made  by  any  other  form  of  philosophical  disquisi- 
tion. It  has  not,  and  from  its  nature  it  cannot  have,  anything  more  than 
human  authority.  This  system  may  be  adopted  as  a  matter  of  opinion, 
but  it  cannot  be  an  object  of  faith;  and,  therefore,  it  cannot  support 

going  over  the  expressions,  '  Christianity  is  not  doctrine,  not  this  and  not  that,  but 
life :'  and  I  still  thought  he  meant  by  that,  that  we  must  show  our  faith  by  a  godly 
life.  And  yet  he  never  said  a  word  about  repentance,  faith,  or  things  of  that  sort. 
So  I  once  asked  him  about  it,  when  he  smiled  at  my  ignorance  and  tried  to  explain 
what  it  did  mean.  But  for  the  life  of  me  I  could  not  understand  what  it  was,  but  I 
thought  of  I  Timothy  vi.  20." — S.] 

*  [To  corroborate  and  intensify  the  correctness  of  this  delineation  of  the  teachings 
of  the  new  theory  as  here  given  by  Dr.  Hodge,  we  annex  the  following  two  sentences 
from  an  article  on  (Baptismal)  Regeneration  in  the  Ulercersburg  Review  for  January, 
1873,  by  the  Rev.  \V.  Rupp,  and  defended  by  our  Lancaster  professors.  Speaking 
of  regeneration,  he  says,  "  That  life-breath  which  God  breathed  into  Adam,  when 
he  became  a  living  soul,  cannot  be  regarded  otherwise  than  as  an  emanation  from 
the  being  of  God."  And  then,  further  on  :  "  In  like  manner  the  life  of  regeneration 
is  an  emanation,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  Christ's  Divine-human  life,  and  yet  no 
sensible  or  material  part  of  His  personal  being." 

The  critical  reader  will  please  mark  -the  expression  "  emanation"  (twice  repeated), 
as  appertaining  to  the  out-and-out  pantheistic  school.  Yet  Mr.  Rupp  may  be  un- 
willing to  be  understood  in  so  bad  a  sense.  But  in  that  case  a  scientific  statement 
ought  to  be  made  in  strictly  scientific  form.  It  certainly  both  looks  and  sounds 
strange,  to  speak  mildly. — S.] 

t  Mystical  Presence  (by  Dr.  Nevin),  pp.  225-29. 


154  APPENDICES. 

the  hopes  of  a  soul  conscious  of  guilt.  In  turning  from  such  writings 
to  the  word  of  God,  the  transition,  these  theologians  would  have  us 
believe,  is  from  yvCtoiq  to  mcrvQ  [from  knowledge  \.o  faitli]  ;  but  to  the 
consciousness  of  the  Christian  it  is  like  the  transition  from  the  confusion 
of  tongues  at  Babel,  where  no  man  understood  his  fellow,  to  the 
symphonious  utterance  of  those  '  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.'  " — pp.  18-22. 

Referring  to  those  who  deny  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  relation 
of  God  to  the  world,  everything  being  according  to  law,  ordered,  and 
uniform,  the  same  author  says  : 

"  Those  who  depart  from  their  principles  so  far  as  to  admit  the  person 
of  Christ  to  be  supernatural  in  its  origin,  contend  that  the  supernatural 
in  Him  becomes  natural,  and  that  from  Him  onward  the  diffusion  of 
spiritual  life  is  by  a  regular  process  of  development,  as  simply  natural 
as  the  development  of  humanity  from  Adam  through  all  his  posterity. 
This  is  a  purely  philosophical  theory.  It  has  no  authority  for  Christians. 
As  it  is  contrary  to  the  express  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  it  cannot  be 
adopted  by  those  who  recognize  them  as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  As  it  contradicts  the  moral  and  religious  convictions  arising 
from  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  it  must  be  hurtful  in  all  its  tenden- 
cies, and  can  be  adopted  by  those  only  who  sacrifice  to  speculation 
their  interior  life." — p.  37. 


JUSTIFICATION    AND    SANCTIFICATION. 

An  eminent  writer  says  on  this  subject : 

"Justification  and  sanctification  should  always  be  discriminated,  but 
they  must  never  be  disunited.  Where  they  are  not  distinguished,  a 
religious  system  cannot  be  clear;  and  where  they  are  divided,  it  can 
never  be  safe.  Where  they  are  not  distinguished,  law  and  gospel, 
free  will  and  free  grace,  the  merit  of  man  and  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  run  into  a  mass  of  confusion  and  disorder.  And  where  they  are 
divided,  Pharisaical  pride  and  antinomian  presumption  will  be  sure  to 
follow.  Be  it  remembered,  then,  that  the  one  regards  something  done 
for  us,  the  other  something  done  in  us.  The  one  is  a  relative  (change 
of  our  relation  to  God),  the  other  a  personal  change.  The  one  is 
perfect  at  once  (justification),  the  other  (sanctification)  is  gradual.  The 
one  is  derived  from  the  obedience  of  the  Saviour,  the  other  from  His 
.Spirit.  The  one  gives  us  a  title  to  heaven,  the  other  a  meetness 
(fitness)  for  it." 

The  venerable  Dr.  A.  Alexander,  of  Princeton,  s.iid  on  his  death- 
bed, "  All  my  theology  is  reduced  to  the  prayer  of  the  publican :  God 
be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner!" 


APPENDICES.  J  ^2 

John  Wesley  said  on  his  death-bed  to  one  who  referred  to  the  lonj; 
and  successful  labors  of  his  (Wesley's)  life  and  labors,  "  I  see  nothing 
in  aught  I  have  done  that  can  be  a  ground  of  hope  or  assurance  to  me 
but  this  : 

'  I  the  chief  of  sinners  am. 
But  Jesus  died  for  me  I  '  " 

And  that  was  enough.    May  it  be  your  heart-felt  confession,  dear  reader, 
and  mine ! 


ID. 
NO    HUMAN    CONFESSORS. 

The  devoted  Canon  Ryle,  a  dignitary  of  the  Church  of  England,  and, 
if  we  mistake  not,  one  of  the  chaplains  of  Queen  Victoria,  in  one  of 
his  tracts  on  the  present  disturbed  state  of  the  Church  in  that  country 
on  account  of  the  gradual  introduction  of  Romish  ceremonies,  uses 
the  following  solemn  words  on  the  effort  to  revive  the  Confessional  : 

"  We  honor  the  minister's  office  highly,  Ijut  we  refuse  to  give  it  a 
hair's  breadth  more  dignity  than  we  find  given  it  in  the  word  of  God. 
We  honor  ministers  as  Christ's  ambassadors,  Christ's  messengers, 
Christ's  watchmen,  helpers  of  believers'  joys,  preachers  of  the  word, 
and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  But  we  decline  to  regard  them 
as  priests,  mediators,  confessors,  and  rulers  over  men's  faith,  both  for 
the  sake  of  their  souls  and  our  own. 

•'  Listen  not  to  those  who  tell  you  that  evangelical  teaching  is  opposed 
to  the  exercise  of  discipline,  or  heart-examination,  or  mortification  of 
the  flesh,  or  true  contrition.  Opposed  to  it !  There  never  was  a  more 
baseless  assertion.  We  are  entirely  favorable  to  it.  This  only  we 
require,  that  it  shall  be  carried  on  in  the  right  way.  We  approve  of  a 
Confessional,  but  it  must  be  the  only  true  one,  the  Throne  of  Grace. 
We  approve  of  going  to  a  confessor,  but  it  must  be  to  the  true  one, 
Christ  the  Lord.  We  approve  of  submitting  consciences  to  a  priest, 
but  it  must  be  to  the  great  High' Priest,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God.  We 
approve  of  unbosoming  our  secret  sins  and  seeking  absolution,  but  it 
must  be  at  the  feet  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  and  not  at  the  feet 
of  one  of  His  weak  members.  We  approve  of  kneeling  to  receive 
ghostly  counsel,  but  it  must  be  at  the  feet  of  Christ,  and  not  at  the  feet 
of  man. 

"  Reader,  beware  of  ever  losing  sight  of  Christ's  priestly  office. 
Glory  in  His  atoning  death.  Honor  Him  as  your  substitute  and  surety 
on  the  Cross.  Follow  Him  as  your  Shepherd.  Hear  His  voice  as 
your  Prophet.  Obey  Him  as  your  King.  But  in  all  your  thoughts  about 
Christ,  let  it  be  often  before  your  mind,  that  He  alone  is  your  High 
Priest,  and  that  He  has  deputed  His  priestly  office  to  no  order  of  men 
in  the  world.  This  is  the  office  of  Christ  which  Satan  labors  above 
all  to  obscure.     It  is  the  neglect  of  this  office  which  leads  to  every 


156 


APPENDICES. 


kind  of  error.  It  is  the  remembrance  of  this  which  is  the  best  safe- 
guard against  the  plausible  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Once 
right  about  this  office,  you  will  never  gi-catly  err  in  the  matter  of  the 
confession  of  sin.  Vou  will  know  to  whom  confession  ought  to  be  made  ; 
and  to  know  that  rightly  is  no  slight  thing." 

THE   CROSS  OF   CHRIST    THE   BELIEVER'S   JOY. 

"  A  few  years  since,  a  drawing  representing  the  crucified  Saviour  was 
found  upon  the  walls  of  the  ancient  palace  of  the  Caasars  in  Rome. 
The  rude  sketch  speaks  to  us  from  the  midst  of  the  times  of  the  struggle 
between  Christianity  and  heathenism,  and  is  a  memorial  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  minds  of  men  were  then  stirred.  Some  heathen  servant 
of  the  emperor  is  taunting  his  Christian  fellow-servant  with  this  con- 
temptuous sign.  The  relic  belongs  to  about  the  year  A.D.  200,  and  is 
by  far  the  most  ancient  crucifix  we  know  of.  But  this,  the  oldest 
crucifix,  is  an  ironical  one.  It  is  a  caricature  of  Christ,  before  which 
a  Christian  stands  worshiping,  and  it  bears  the  inscription, '  Alexamenos 
(the  name  of  the  derided  Christian)  worshiping  his  God.'  We  see 
that  the  crucified  Saviour  and  the  preaching  of  the  Cross  were  the  scorn 
of  the  world.  In  the  great  struggle  between  heathenism  and  Chris- 
tianity, the  Cross  was  the  sign  of  victory.  ...  If  Christianity  is  to 
conquer  the  world,  it  will  only  do  so  as  the  preaching  of  the  Cross,  and 
not  by  concessions  to  the  natural  reason.  ...  If  we  would  truly 
understand  God,  we  must  make  the  Cross  our  starting-point,  for  it  is 
here  that  His  holiness  and  His  love  are  found  united.  If  we  would 
have  communion  with  God,  we  must  seek  it  at  the  Cross,  for  it  is  here 
that  judgment  is  executed  on  the  sin  which  separates  us  from  God,  and 
here  that  the  love  is  manifested  which  unites  us  with  Him.  So  long, 
therefore,  as  there  are  Christians  on  earth, — and  that  will  be  to  the  end 
of  time, — their  confession  will  be,  '  He  who  died  upon  the  Cross  is 
my  Beloved.'  " — Luthardt. 

"O  sacred  Head,  now  wounded, 

With  grief  and  shame  weighed  down, 
Now  scornfully  surrounded 

With  thorns,  Thine  only  crown, — 
O  sacred  Head,  what  glory, 

What  bliss,  till  now  was  Thine  ! 
Yet,  though  despised  and  gory, 

I  joy  to  call  Thee  mine." — 

(Paul  Gerhardt:  translated  by  Dr.  James  W.  Alexander.) 


APPENDICES.  I  r  7 


E. 


Dr.  Luthardt  says,  "  He  [God]  has  His  work  in  the  souls  of  chil- 
dren as  well  as  in  the  souls  of  adults.  Yet  we  grant  that  this  commu- 
nion with  God  must  become  a  matter  of  consciousness  [experience]. 
And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  we  follow  Baptism  by  Confirmation, — not 
to  complete  Baptism,  for  it  is  complete  already  ;  not  to  renew  it,  for  it 
is  a  beginning  once  for  all ;  but  that  the  baptized  may  express,  with  his 
own  mouth,  that  confession  of  faith  upon  which  he  was  baptized,  that 
his  covenant  with  God  in  Baptism  may  be  the  covenant  of  his  con- 
scious choice,  and  that  he  may  receive  the  blessing  at  the  very  lime  of 
his  moral  development  and  his  moral  danger.  With  Confirmation  we 
combine  the  first  reception  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  consequently  full 
membership  in  the  Christian  Church."     (Lecture  ix.  pp.  241-2.) 


IP. 

[The  following  theses  on  the  ministerial  office  were  proposed  by  the 
eminent  Court  preacher  and  councillor  of  the  High  Consistory,  Dr. 
Schwartz,  of  Saxony,  before  a  convention  of  ministers,  several  years 
ago,  and  by  them  were  adopted.  It  is  seldom  that  we  see  so  much  valu- 
able matter  compressed  into  so  few  words.  We  ask  a  careful  study  of 
this  able  statement.] 

THE  OFFICE  OF  THE   EVANGELICAL  MINISTRY  IN  ITS 
RELATION  TO   THE   CHURCH. 

1.  The  office  of  the  ministry  exists  not  for  its  own  sake,  neither  out- 
side, nor  before,  nor  over  the  Church ;  but  it  grows  out  of  her,  stands 
in  her,  and  labors  with  her,  as  the  central  point  of  the  organized 
Church. 

2.  It  does  not  operate  in  a  saving  way  by  the  power  of  an  institution, 
but  alone  through  a  living  and  working  {xverkthatigen)  faith  of  the 
office-bearer. 

3.  It  is  not  founded,  nevertheless  designed  {geivollt)  by  God,  pro- 
ceeds not  immediately  but  mediately,  not  in  a  supernatural  but  in  a 
natural  way,  from  Him,  and  is  in  no  other  sense  of  Divine  origin  than 
as  every  higher  organization  from  an  inward  necessity  is  such, — as  is 
the  office  of  teaching  and  governing. 

4.  It  is  not  founded  by  Christ,  although  designed  by  Him,  as  He 
specially  called  only  the  Apostles,  furnished  with  His  Spirit,  merely 
founding  the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  not  organizing  the  Church. 

5.  It  is  exercised  by  the  commission  and  authority  of  the  Church, 
but  is  not  on  that  account  dependent  upon  the  variable  views  and 

14 


158 


APPENDICES. 


wishes  of  the  many,  but  rather  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  is  the  only  Lord  of  the  Church,  and  who  leads  her  into  all  Truth. 

6.  The  idea  of  the  Universal  Priesthood,  as  it  was  again  revived  by 
Luther  (and  other  Reformers),  contains  the  truth,  that  the  office  of  the 
ministry  does  not  rest  upon  a  difference  of  the  quality,  but  only  upon 
a  distribution  of  labor,  or,  that  there  is  not  a  special  class  {Stand),  but 
only  a  spiritual  calling  [Beriif). 

7.  The  ministerial  office  includes,  as  its  necessary  prerequisites,  these 
three  things:  («)  an  inward  call  or  a  spiritual  fitness;  {/>)  the  prepara- 
tion or  education  for  it ;   {c)  the  external  call  or  appointment. 

8.  The  inward  call,  although  in  different  degrees,  belongs  to  all  the 
members  of  the  Church,  and  is  the  foundation  of  the  Universal  Priest- 
hood ;  the  education  and  external  call  belong  only  to  a  part,  and  are 
the  basis  of  the  regular  office. 

9.  Fanatics  and  sectarians  disregard  education  and  -an  outward 
call;  State  theologians  and  hierarchists  disregard  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit. 

10.  The  ministerial  office  is  an  office  of  the  Spirit,  and  therefore 
is  efi"ective  only  in  a  spiritual — that  is  to  say,  in  a  real  and  free — way,  not 
by  outward  constraint  or  coercion. 

11.  There  is  a  pastoral  office,  not  n>erely  an  office  of  preaching,  but 
one  in  deed,  consisting  not  merely  in  proclaiming  the  gospel,  but  also 
in  leading  the  congregation  by  an  exemplary  evangelical  life. 

12.  The  sermon,  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  the  office 
of  the  Keys  (the  exercise  of  Christian  discipline),  are  only  different 
methods  and  applications  in  preaching  the  gospel. 

THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  OLD  AND  IN  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

The  Church  historian  Dr.  A.  Neander,  in  his  preface  to  a  book  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Coleman  (August,  1843),  says: 

"  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  keep  ever  in  view  the  difference 
between  the  economy  of  the  Old  Testament  and  that  of  the  New.  The 
neglect  of  this  has  given  rise  to  the  grossest  errors,  and  to  divisions,  by 
which  those  who  ought  to  be  united  together  in  the  bonds  of  Christian 
love  have  been  sundered  from  each  other.  In  the  Old  Testament, 
everything  relating  to  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  estimated  by  outward 
foniis  and  promoted  by  specific  external  rites.  In  the  New,  every- 
thing is  made  to  depend  upon  what  is  internal  and  spiritual.  Other 
foundation,  as  the  Apostle  Paul  has  said,  can  no  man  lay  than  is  laid. 
Upon  this  the  Christian  Church  at  first  was  grounded,  and  upon  this 
alone,  in  all  time  to  come,  must  it  be  reared  anew  and  compacted  to- 
gether. Faith  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and 
union  with  Him,  a  participation  in  that  salvation  which  cometh  through 
Him, — this  is  that  inward  principle,  that  unchangeable  foundation,  on 
which  the  Christian  Church  essentially  rests.  But  whenever,  instead 
of  making  the  existence  of  the  Church  to  depend  on  this  inward  prin- 
ciple alone,  the  necessity  of  some  outward  form  is  asserted  as  an  indis- 
pensable means  of  grace,  we  readily  perceive  that  the  purity  of  its  char- 


APPENDICES.  I  rg 

acter  is  impaired.    The  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  is  commingled  with 
that  of  the  New." 

Dr.  Neander,  in  the  same  preface,  says  :  "  When,  however,  the  doc- 
trine is  (as  it  gradually  gained  currency  in  the  third  century)  that  the 
bishops  are  by  Divine  right  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  invested  with 
the  government  of  the  same;  that  they  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles, 
and  by  this  succession  inherit  apostolical  authority ;  that  they  are  the 
medium  through  which,  in  consequence  of  that  ordination  which  they 
have  received  merely  in  an  outward  manner,  the  Holy  Ghost  in  all 
time  to  come  must  be  transmitted-  to  the  Church, — when  this  becomes 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  we  certainly  must  perceive  in  these  assump- 
tions a  strong  corruption  of  the  purity  of  the  Christian  system.  //  is  a 
carnal  perversion  of  the  true  idea  of  the  Christian  Chureh.  It  is  fall- 
ing back  into  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Instead  of  the  Chris- 
tian idea  of  a  Church  based  on  inward  principles  of  communion,  and 
e.xtending  itself  by  means  of  these,  it  presents  us  with  the  image  of  one, 
like  that  under  the  Old  Testament,  resting  in  outward  ordinances,  and 
by  external  rites  seeking  to  promote  the  propagation  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  This  entire  perversion  of  the  original  view  of  the  Christian 
Church  was  itself  the  origin  of  the  whole  system  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic religion, — the  germ  from  which  sprang  the  popery  of  the  dark 
ages." 


HOW  THE  NEW  THEORY  HAS  LED  TO  ROME. 

A  FRIEND  at  a  distance  has  sent  us  the  following  extract  from  a  letter 
from  one  of  the  Reformed  ministers  who,  under  the  influence  of  Mer- 
cersburg  teaching,  have  been  landed  in  the  Roman  Church,  which 
strongly  confirms  and  illustrates  our  position  referred  to  in  its 
proper  place,  and  hence  it  is  proper  and  right  to  give  it  a  place  here. 
He  says : 

"  The  report  on  the  state  of  religion  at  the  Synod  of  Danville  was 
adopted  nem.  con.  (Dr.  Nevin  being  reported  ...  to  have  called 
it  a  'glorious'  report).  .  .  ,  The  Afessenger  unwittingly  speaks 
one  true  word  in  reference  to  certain  '  perverts'  giving  up  the  active 
duties  of  the  ministry,  or  laboring  in  it  with  only  half  a  heart.  The 
reason  was  that  Mercersbiirg  cut  the  sinews  of  their  strength  by  destroy- 
ing their  faith  in  Protestantism.     So  it  was  with and  myself.     So 

it  was  with  and and  others.     .     .     .     used  to  say  (and 

others  repeated  it),  'Dr.  N'evin  has  hamstrung  his  horses,  and  then 
says  to  them.  Now,  horses,  go  and  work  P  " 

We  regard  this  testimony  from  one  of  the  "  perverts"  as  important 
and  significant.  It  is  the  same  that  was  given  to  us  by  one  of  them 
twenty  years  ago,  and  it  opens  to  us  a  view  of  the  process  by  which 
their  minds  were  led  away  from  the  faith  of  their  fathers  into  the  dismal 
and  dreary  notions  of  Romanism.    We  can  see,  too,  that  this  description 


1 60  --  APPENDICES. 

is  true.  It  was  a  legitimate e^Qc\.  of  the  system  we  have  l)een  tr)in<T  to 
lay  open  to  the  public  gaze  of  the  Church.  The  childish  outciy  that 
this  is  testimony  from  men  who  are  now  Roman  Catholics,  won't  do. 
They  were  on  their  way  thither  for  a  long  time,  and  when  some  of  us 
said  so  it  was  cried  down  as  slander.  They  carried  the  seeds  in  them  for 
years,  and  they  merely  say  now  what  they  always  did,  that  they  were 
taught  in  a  way  that  made  them  dissatisfied  with  Protestantism.  That 
is  the  truth  in  a  nutshell,  and  it  cannot  be  successfully  gainsaid. 

"  Irenjeus,"  in  the  Messenger  of  October  8,  1873,  says  that  the 
opposition  to  "  Nevinism"  was  as  much  in  fault  in  leading  some  of  our 
ministers  to  Rome  as  was  the  "  Mercersburg-Lancaster  School ;"  and  he 
argues  more  truthfully,  but  for  his  cause  not  more  wisely,  than  some 
others.  His  argument  is,  that  ifthose  who  were"  afllicted  by  a  Romanizing 
mania  had  been  allowed  quietly  to  go  on  without  opposition,  they 
would  have  remained  in  the  Church ;  but,  finding  powerful  opposing 
elements  at  work  which  might  put  an  end  to  that  '  mania,'  they  pre- 
ferred to  depart."  Just  so.  Allow  the  men  to  go  on  "  developing" 
their  "  Romanizing  mania"  at  pleasure,  as  the  Puseyites  in  England 
are  doing  (and  "  Irenasus"  says  Puseyism  is  a  "parallel"  to  "Nevin- 
ism"), and  the  Reformed  Church,  with  a  comfortable  support,  will  be 
good  enough  for  them.  Why  should  they  leave  the  Reformed  Church 
if  she  is  weak  and  good-natured  enough  to  allow  those  smitten  with 
the  "  Romanizing  mania"  to  eat  her  bread,  and,  besides  that,  to  brow- 
beat and  smite  her  children  because  they  will  not  take  the  infection 
of  the  Pontine  marshes  near  the  Tiber?  The  reasoning  is  well  taken; 
but  a  shrewder  man  would  not  have  "  taken"  it. 


13L. 
EXEGETICAL  NOTES   ON   THE   GOSPEL  OF  JOHN. 

BY   DR.   SCHAFF,   IN   LANGE'S   COMMENTARY.* 

The  readers  of  these  pages  will,  we  are  sure,  thank  us  for  the  fol- 
lowing well-matured  and  instructive  notes  on  various  important  pas- 
sages from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Schaff.  No  one,  probably,  is  better  qualified 
than  he  to  appreciate  the  new  theory  which  we  regard  as  erroneous, 
and  which  these  expositions,  without  any  apparent  aim  or  design, 
nullify  or  disprove.  We  avail  ourselves,  in  part,  of  the  judicious 
grouping  of  these  extracts  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bomberger,  in  his  Reformed 


*  The  Gospel  .according  to  John.  By  John  Peter  Lange,  D.D.,  Professor  of  The- 
ologj'  in  the  University  of  Bonn  (Prussia).  Translated  from  the  German,  revised, 
enlarged,  and  edited,  hy  Ph.  Schaff,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Union  The- 
ological Seminary,  New  York.  1871  ;  Scribner  &  Co.  ;  royal  8vo,  pp.  654.  We 
consider  the  volume  of  Lange's  Commentary  on  John,  and  that  on  Matthew,  the 
most  valuable  of  all  the  New  Testament  volumes  as  far  as  published. 


APPENDICES.  j5i 

Church  Monthly  for  1 87 1,  together  with  some  remarks  from  his  own 
pen, 

"  The  distinctive  characteristics  of  the  Gospel  of  John,"  says  Dr. 
Bomberger,  "  invest  it  with  special  interest  and  importance  for  some 
of  the  leading  points  of  llieological  discussion  or  controversy  in  our 
day.  It  is  to  this  Gospel,  mainly,  tliat  the  advocates  of  thcanthropisni 
appeal,  as  if  confident  that  it  furnishes  full  support  to  their  theory  of 
an  immanent  organic  union  of  the  Godhead  with  humanity.  So,  too, 
when  they  claim  that  Christ  and  the  Ciiurch  are  so  substantially  one, 
that  the  Church  is  but  Christ  perpetuating  His  own  personal  life 
through  the  Church  in  the  world,  and  so  redeeming  the  race,  they 
mainly  rely  on  John  for  proof.  Here,  too,  they  think  they  find  the 
strongest  justification  of  their  peculiar  sacramental  views,  baptismal 
regeneration,  and  the  real  communication  of  the  substance  of  Christ's 
glorified  humanity  in  and  through  the  Holy  Supper.  And  no  one  can 
deny  that  there  are  detached  passages  in  this  Gospel  which  may,  in 
sound  at  least,  sean  to  favor  these  and  other  similar  ultra  false  church 
views. 

"  As  it  is  by  John  that  the  Spirit  reveals  more  fully  than  in  either  of 
the  other  Gospels  the  mysterious  tri-personality  of  the  glorious  God- 
head, so  it  is  here  we  find  set  forth,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  the  vital 
relation  of  believers  to  God  in  Christ.  This  is  naturally  and  neces- 
sarily done  in  figurative  language;  hence  the  temptation  for  minds  of 
a  speculative  mystic  turn  to  misapprehend  and  misinterpret  what  is 
said,  and  to  let  themselves  be  led,  by  their  own  error,  into  pantheistic 
mists.  The  Gospel  is  not  a  fault.  It  presents  the  truth  plainly  enough 
to  prevent  such  false  conceptions  of  the  matter.  Those  falling  under 
the  power  of  such  conceptions  are  betrayed  by  their  own  deceptive 
philosophy  and  indulged  theosophic  dreams. 

"  All  this,  however,  adds  greatly  to  the  interest  as  well  as  responsi- 
bility of  the  expositor's  work.  And  any  one  duly  competent  for  the 
sacred  task,  not  only  by  his  learning,  but  still  more  by  his  being  in 
true  spiritual  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  John,  and  especially  of  Him 
on  whose  inmost  bosom  the  beloved  disciple  so  confidingly  reposed — 
any  one  so  fitted  for  the  work  could  not  fail  to  find  the  work  as  con- 
genial as  it  is  solemn. 

"  This  Gospel  affords  such  a  commentator  abundant  opportunities  for 
exposing  and  correcting  some  of  the  most  specious  and  ensnaring 
errors  by  which  the  truth  has  ever  been  perverted,  as  well  as  for  clearly 
exhibiting  and  defending  the  most  vital  doctrines  of  Christianity.  It 
thus  becomes  at  once  a  severe  test  of  his  own  evangelical  orthodoxy 
regarding  fundamental  articles  of  faith.  And  in  proportion  to  his 
fidelity  to  that  faith  in  the  performance  of  his  task,  will  he  be  sure  to 
receive  the  warm  approval  of  all  who  love  it,  and  to  draw  down  upon 
himself  tlie  censure  and  condemnation  of  those  who  have  departed 
from  it. 

"  Dr.  Schaff  has  clearly  felt  this,  and  more  deeply,  no  doubt,  than 
we  can  tell  it,  in  the  preparation  of  the  volume  before  us.  He  proves 
it  by  the  labor  so  cheerfully  bestowed  upon  the  work  in  large  voluntary 
additions  to  the  original.  He  knew  the  special  demands  of  the  theo- 
logical latitude  in  which  it  would  circulate.  Circumstances  had  made 
14*  L 


1 62  APPENDICES. 

him  more  familiar  than,  probably,  any  other  American  theologian,  with 
speculations  of  the  most  perilous  character.  These,  though  as  yet  con- 
fined to  very  narrow  limits  of  influence,  might,  by  their  novelty  and 
speciousness  and  '  show  of  wisdom,'  spread  with  mischievous  power 
among  unsuspecting  but  novelty-loving  disciples  of  theology.  Hence 
the  American  editor  felt  called  by  duty  freely  to  enlarge  upon  Dr. 
Lange's  comments  by  numerous  notes.  These  notes  are  critical,  exe- 
getical,  and  doctrinal,  and  add  greatly,  for  us  at  least,  to  the  value  of 
the  German  work. 

"  The  added  doctrinal  notes  have  special  significance,  as  some  of 
the  fullest  of  them  touch  upon  important  questions  now  at  issue  among 
us.  We  can  cite  only  a  few  of  them.  But  they  will  suffice  to  show 
our  readers  both  what  we  mean,  and  why  we  set  so  much  store  by 
them. 

"  Fhst,  on  the  relation  of  God  in  Christ  to  creation  and  the  world, 
Dr.  Schaff  declares : 

'"The  Scripture  doctrine  of  creation  differs:  I,  from  Pantheism, 
which  teaches  an  eternal  world,  and  confounds  God  with  the  world ; 
2,  from  Dualism,  or  the  eternity  of  matter  antagonistic  to  God  ;  3,  from 
the  emanation  theory  ;*  4,  from  Deism,  which  asserts  the  creation  but 
separates  it  from  the  Creator;  5,  from  Materialism,  which  makes  matter 
the  mother  of  the  spirit  and  is  alike  degrading  to  God  and  man'  (p.  63 
of  Comm.). 

"  The  first  and  third  points  in  the  above  quotation  merit  special 
thought.  We  have  italicized  the  third,  which  the  editor  does  not 
define,  and  added  in  the  foot-note  what  we  regard  as  its  true  import. 

"  Secondly,  on  the  Incarnation,  it  is  gratifying  to  hear  Dr.  S.  affirm  so 
distinctly: 

"'The  Logos  assumed,  not  an  individual  man  or  a  single  human 
personality,  but  human  nature  (of  course  this  individually, — B.),  i)ito 
union  with  His  pre-cxistent  Divine  personality.  .  .  .  It  is  not  the 
flesh  as  opposed  to  the  spirit,  that  is  here  ("the  Word  became  flesh"), 
but  human  nature  as  distinct  from  the  Divine.  .  .  .  The  term 
("only-begotten,"  chapter  i.  14)  refers  back  to  v.  12,  and  marks  the 
difference  between  Christ  and  the  believers.  I,  He  is  the  only  Son 
in  a  sense  in  -which  there  is  no  other;  they  are  many ;  2,  He  is  Son 
from  eternity;  they  become  children  in  time;  3,  He  is  Son  by  nature; 
they  are  made  sons  by  j^race  and  adoption ;  4,  He  is  of  the  same 
essence  with  the  P\ither ;  they  are  of  a  different  substance.  In  other 
words.  His  is  a  metaphysical  primitive  and  co-essential  Sonship, 
theirs  only  an  ethical  and  derived  Sonship.^ 

"  In  the  passages  we  have  italicized  above,  it  must  be  cheering  to  all 
evangelical  readers  to  note  how  distinctly  Dr.  S.  reiterates  the  old 
faith,  and  repudiates  all  thought  of  such  an  organic  conjunction  of  the 
eternal  Word  with  humanity  as  involves  a  perpetual  transmission  of 
the  substance  of  the  life  of  the  Word  incarnate  to  the  race  regenerated 
by  such  transmission. 

"  Thirdly.,  In  the  third  chapter  of  the  Gospel,  which  contains  the  con- 

*  "  Which  teaches  that  all  life  is  but  a  flowing  forth  of  the  substance  of  the  life  of 
God  into  things  so  created  and  an  essential  part  of  that  Divine  life,  by  an  organic 
process. — B." 


APPENDICES.  jg- 

versation  of  our  Lord  with  Nicodemus,  Dr.  Schaff  finds  a  fitting  oppor- 
tunity to  affirm  and  vindicate  the  old  evangelical  doctrine  concerning 
Baptism,  and  he  faithfully  improves  the  opportunity.  After  remarking- 
that  '  true  religion  in  the  soul  begins  with  a  persottal  conviction  of  sin 
and  guilt,  .  .  .  without  which  all  efforts  to  convert  a  man  are  in 
vain,'  he  adds : 

"  '  It  is  characteristic  of  the  idealism  and  mysticism  of  John  that 
in  his  Gospel  he  gives  no  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Church  and 
the  sacraments.  But,  anticipating  the  visible  rite,  he  presents  in  ch.  3 
the  idea  of  the  new  birth  which  is  symbolized  in  Christian  Baptism, 
together  with  the  idea  of  "  the  kingdom  of  God"  which  is  the  internal 
and  abiding  essence  of  the  Church.  So  in  ch.  6  he  gives  the  general 
idea  of  vital  union  with  Christ,  which  underlies  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.' 

"Baptism  and  Regeneration.  These,  in  their  relation  to  each  other, 
receive  earnest  consideration  under  ch.  3.  Dr.  Schaff's  notes  upon 
them  are  full  and  explicit.  And  they  were  evidently  written,  7tot  hastily, 
as  Dr.  Apple  of  Mercersburg  says,  but  with  careful  thought.  This  will 
be  evident  from  the  following  quotations : 

"  '  Regeneration  is  a  creative  act  of  God  the  Holy  Spirit,  whereby  a 
new  spiritual  life  from  al)ove  is  implanted  in  man,  through  the  means 
of  grace,  especially  the  preaching  of  the  gospel ;  like  the  natural  birth, 
it  can  occur  but  once.  .  .  .  As  to  its  origin  and  mode  of  operation,  it 
is  a  mystery,  like  the  natural  generation  and  birth,  but  a  mystery  mani- 
fest in  its  effects  to  all  who  have  spiritual  eyes  to  see ;  it  meets  us  as  a 
fact  in  every  frue  Christian  or  child  of  God,  who  is  as  sure  of  the  higher 
life  of  Christ  in  his  own  soul  as  he  is  of  his  natural  existence.'  In 
another  view  of  the  suljject,  yet  one  in  entire  hamrony  with  the  fore- 
going passage,  he  speaks  of  regeneration  as  '  a  moral  new  birth.' 

"  Having  thus  defined  the  true  idea  of  regeneration,  the  doctrine  of 
baptism  itself  receives  attention  in  a  note  under  verse  5, — '  born  of 
water  and  the  Spirit,'  etc.  Dr.  S.  says,  '  The  key  to  the  sense  of  the 
passage  is  furnished  by  the  declaration  of  the  Baptist  that  he  baptized 
only  with  water,  but  Christ  would  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  (i.  33), 
and  by  the  passage  of  Paul  where  he  connects  Christian  baptism  as 
"  the  bath  of  regeneration"  with  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
yet  distinguishes  both  (Tit.  iii.  5).'  Other  illustrative  passages  are 
cited,  and  the  frequent  figurative  use  of  the  term  water  in  the  Old 
Testament  referred  to.     Dr.  Schaff  then  adds  : 

"  '  The  idea  which  underlies  all  these  baptisms  is  essentially  the  same. 
We  would,  therefore,  not  confine  "  water"  to  any  particular  form  of 
baptism,  but  (with  Lange,  see  below.  No.  5)  extend  it  to  all  preparatory 
illustrations;  nor  would  we  refer  it  directly  to  the  sacrament  as  an 
external  act  or  rite,  but  (with  Olshausen)  to  the  idea  rather, — of  which 
the  cleansing  with  water  is  the  symbolic  expression, — just  as  in  ch.  6 
we  have  an  exposition  of  the  general  idea  of  the  holy  communion 
before  the  sacrament  was  instituted  in  which  it  comes  to  its  full  em- 
bodiment. The  idea  underlying  all  fomis  of  baptism  is  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  on  condition  of  repentance.  This  is  the  negative  part  of  regener- 
ation, while  the  new  life  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
positive  part,  or  regeneration  proper.     So  Peter,  in  his  pentecostal  ser- 


1 64 


APPENDICES. 


mon,  represents  the  matter  when  he  calls  upon  his  hearers,  "  Repent 
and  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts  ii.  38).  The 
chief  matter  is,  of  course,  the  positive  part,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  is  the  efficient  cause,  the  creative  and  vivifying  agent  of  regenera- 
tion, and  who  alone  can  make  the  word  and  the  sacrament  effective. 
Hence  the  Spirit  alone  is  mentioned  in  verses  6  and  8.  The  omission 
of  water  here  is  as  significant  as  the  omission  of  baptism  in  the  negative 
clause  of  Mark  xvi.  16,  where  the  condition  of  salvation  and  the  reason 
of  damnation  are  laid  down.  This  is  a  sufficient  hint  that  the  necessity 
of  water  baptism  to  salvation  is  not  absolute,  but  relative  only.  The 
penitent  thief  passed  into  Paradise  without  water  baptism.  Corne- 
lius was  regenerated  before  he  was  baptized,  and  many  martyrs  in  the 
early  ages  died  for  Christ  before  they  had  a  chance  to  receive  the 
sacrament.  //  is  possible  to  have  the  substance  without  the  form,  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  without  the  baptism  of  the  water ;  as  it  is  quite 
common  on  the  other  hand  to  be  baptized  7uith  water  and  have  the  Chris- 
tian name  zvithout  the  Christian  spirit  and  life.  The  Apostles  them- 
selves (except  Paul)  never  received  Christian  baptism,  for  Christ 
Himself,  who  alone  could  have  administered  it  to  them,  did  not  baptize 
(iv.  2).  In  their  case  the  pentecostal  effusion  of  the  Spirit  was  suffi- 
cient. We  are  bound  to  God's  appointed  means  of  grace,  but  God  is 
free,  and  the  Spirit  "  bloweth  where  it  listeth."  '  In  another  note  he 
still  further  emphasizes  the  vitally  important  truth  brought  out  so  strongly 
above,  by  declaring,  'The  necessity  of  regeneration  and  faith  to  salva- 
tion is  absolute,  the  necessity  of  baptism  or  anything  else  is  merely 
relative.  Only  imbelief  that  is,  the  rejection  of  the  gospel,  with  or 
without  baptism,  condemns.' 

"  Dr.  T.  G.  Apple,  as  it  were  speaking  for  Mercersburg  theology  in 
its  latest  development,  takes  Dr.  Schaff  to  task  for  uttering  sentiments 
like  these.  He  charges  Dr.  S.  with  error  in  exegesis  (!)  and  in 
theology.  Of  course,  then,  by  Dr.  A.'s  confession,  Mercersburg  holds 
essentially  different  views.  This  we  readily  believe.  Then  the  simple 
question  is.  Which  is  Reformed  doctrine  ?  which  is  true  ?  The  doctrine 
as  so  explicitly  and  frankly  avowed  in  his  commentary,  or  the  views 
advocated  by  Mercersburg  ?  Few  readers  will  probably  hesitate,  any 
more  than  we  do,  to  prefer  the  old  faith  to  the  new. 

"Fourthly.  The  Lord's  Supper,  etc.  Under  the  sixth  chapter  of  the 
Gospel  Dr.  Schaff  supplies  some  very  valuable  notes  touching  the 
significance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  doctrines  connected  with  it.  We 
reluctantly  limit  ourselves  to  a  few  brief  quotations,  which,  however, 
will  enable  the  reader  to  catch  the  general  drift  of  the  comments.  As 
a  clear  indication  of  his  ruling  convictions,  Dr.  S.  remarks,  on  vi.  29, 
Upon  '  the  distinction  between  believing  Christ,  which  is  simply  an 
intellectual  assent  to  an  historical  fact,  .  .  .  and  believing  in  Christ 
as  an  object  of  confidence  and  hope,  which  implies  a  vital  union  with 
Him.  This  is  both  a  work  of  Divine  grace  and  the  highest  work  of 
man.  .  .  .  Faith  is  the  greatest  act  of  freedom  towards  God,  for  by  it 
He  gives  Himself,  and  more  man  cannot  do.  .  .  .  Schleiermacher 
calls  this  passage  the  clearest  and  most  significant  declaration  that  all 
eternal  life  proceeds  from  nothing  less  than  faith  in  Christ.^ 


APPENDICES. 


165 


"  Again,  on  vi.  44 :  '  The  natural  inability  of  man  to  come  to  Christ, 
however,  is  not  physical  nor  intellectual,  but  moral  and  spiritual.  It 
is  an  unwillingness.  No  change  of  mental  organization,  no  new  faculty, 
is  required,  but  a  radical  change  of  the  heart  and  will.  This  is  effected 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  the  providential  drawing  of  the  Father  prepares 
the  way  for  it.' 

"  Regarding  the  sacramental  interpretation  of  vi.  51,  etc..  Dr.  Schaff 
holds,  that  whilst  the  passage  does  not  refer  dii'ectly  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  it  sets  forth  the  idea  of  it.     He  says : 

"  '' }f  pci>'ticipation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  were  a  necessary  prc-requisite 
of  salvation,  Christ  would  undoubtedly  have  said  so  when  He  instituted 
the  ordinance.  But  throughout  the  gospel,  and  especially  in  this  dis- 
course. He  makes  FAITH  the  only  condition  of  eternal  life.  He  first 
exhibits  Himself  as  the  Bread  of  Life,  and  promises  eternal  life  to  every 
one  who  eats  this  bread,  that  is,  who  believes  in  Him.  He  then  holds 
out  the  same  promise  to  all  those  who  eat  His  flesh  and  drink  His 
blood,  which,  consequently,  must  be  essentially  the  same  act  as  bclievi7ig. 
The  discourse,  therefore,  refers  to  a  broader  and  deeper  fact,  which 
precedes  and  underlies  the  sacrament,  and  of  which  the  sacrament  is  a 
significant  sign  and  seal,  \\z.,  personal  union  of  the  belie^nng  soul  with 
Christ,  and  a  living  appropriation  of  His  atonitig  sacrifice.  .  .  ,  We 
must  distinguish  between  a  spiritual  manducation  of  Christ  by  faith, 
and  a  j^craw^zAz/ manducation;  the  former  alone  is  essential  to  ever- 
lasting life,  and  is  the  jjroper  subject  of  the  discourse.  John  omits  an 
account  of  the  institution  both  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
.  .  .  but  he  gives  those  profound  discourses  of  Christ  which  explain 
the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  sacraments,  namely,  the  idea  of  regenera- 
tion, which  is  sigtied  and  scaled  in  baptism  (ch.  3),  and  the  idea  of 
personal  commuftion  with  Him,  which  is  celebrated  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
(ch.  6).  This  suggests  a  very  important  doctrinal  inference,  viz.,  that 
the  spiritual  reality  of  regeneration  and  union  with  Christ  is  not  so 
bound  to  the  external  sacramental  sign  that  it  cannot  be  enjoyed  with- 
out that  sign.  IVe  must  obey  God's  ordinances,  but  God  is  free,  and 
we  should  bless  whom  He  blesses.  High  sacramentarianism  is  con- 
trary to  the  teaching  of  Christ,  according  to  St.  John.' 

"  Strongly  as  we  feel  tempted  to  multiply  such  declarations  as  these, 
so  fully  in  harmony  with  Apostolic  teaching  and  the  common  faith  of 
Evangelical  Christendom,  and  just  as  directly  opposed  to  all  Popish 
and  Puseyite  perversions  of  the  gospel,  we  must  not  trespass  upon  our 
pages  further  than  to  add  the  following  : 

" '  Mark,  also,  that /<?//■/;,  and  nothing  else,  is  laid  down  here,  and  in 
this  whole  discourse  (comp.  v.  40:  and  chap.  3,  15,  16),  as  the  condition 
of  eternal  life.  The  eating  of  Christ's  flesh  and  the  drinking  of  His  blood, 
to  be  consistent  with  this,  is  only  a  stronger  form  of  expressing  the  same 
idea  of  a  real  personal  appropriation  of  Christ  by  faith.  This  refutes  all 
forms  of  ecclesiasticism  which  throw  any  kind  of  obstruction  between 
the  soul  and  Christ  as  an  essential  condition  of  salvation,  whether  it  be 
the  authority  of  Pope,  or  Council,  or  Creed,  or  system  of  theology,  or 
the  intercession  of  saints,  or  good  works  of  our  own.  Salvation  de- 
pends solely  and  exclusively  upon  personal  union  with  Christ;  all 
other  things,  however  important  in  their  place,  are  subordinate  to  this. 


1 66  APPENDICES. 

Without  faith  in  Christ  there  can  be  no  salvation  for  any  sinner;  this 
is  the  exclusiveness  of  the  gospel ;  but  with  faith  in  Christ  there  i& 
salvation  for  all,  of  whatever  sect  or  name.     This  is  charity.' 

"  Enough  has  now  been  said  by  us  and  quoted  from  the  volume  before 
us,  to  commend  it  strongly  to  all  earnest  students  of  the  Bible.  Al- 
though this  commentary  exhibits  great  learning,  and  must  prove  most 
helpful  to  the  advanced  scholar,  it  is  also  adapted  to  general  use. 
Every  thoughtful  layman,  given  to  any  proper  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
can  learn  much  from  it,  and  would  find  most  of  its  pages  sufficiently 
plain  for  practical  instruction. 

"  To  students  of  theology  in  our  schools  of  training  for  the  ministry, 
this  volume,  with  the  others  of  the  series,  will  afibrd  assistance  which 
they  can  find  nowhere  else.  And  those  especially  who  may  be  in  any 
peril  of  High-Church  sacramentarianism  would  find  it  one  of  the  surest 
safeguards  against  the  danger  besetting  them.  The  sincere  thanks  of 
the  Church  are  due  to  Dr.  Schafi'  for  the  fidelity  and  courage  with 
which  he  has  done  his  work." 

[From  the  foregoing  lucid  exposition,  many  of  our  readers  will  not 
fail  to  be  reminded  of  the  contrast  between  it  and  the  forced  and 
unusual  explanation  which  is  frequently  given  from  the  pulpit  by  some 
brethren  to  this  beautiful  chapter  of  the  "  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved." 
We  have  on  two  occasions  heard  prominent  brethren  of  the  new  views 
quoting,  for  instance,  from  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  the  verses  from 
fifty-three  to  fifty-nine,  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man," 
etc.,  and  then  giving  the  explanation  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
verj'  body  and  blood  of  Christ  was  partaken,  and  that  just  as  th^se 
words  stand  there ;  that  "  Christ  does  not  stop  to  give  any  explanation 
to  these  words"  (we  quote  verbatim  from  one  brother),  even  when  objec- 
tions were  made  to  such  phraseology;  adding  that  "  the  popular  view 
of  the  modern  Churches  on  this  point  was  '■Rationalism  of  the  baldest 
kind.'  "  In  both  cases  verse  sixty-three  was  not  only  not  quoted,  but  not 
the  most  distant  allusion  was  made  to  it ;  whilst  that  verse,  in  connection 
with  the  one  following,  is  the  very  key  to  the  proper  understanding  of 
the  chapter.  "  The  eating  of  Christ's  flesh,  and  the  drinking  of  His 
blood,  is  only  a  stronger  lorm  of  expressing  the  same  idea  of  a  real 
personal  appropriation  of  Christ  by  faith."  If  this  is  Rationalism,  then 
may  God  give  us  a  large  measure  of  it !] 


I. 

THE   ROMAN   CATHOLIC   SYSTEM. 

FROM    DR.    DORNER'S    ARTICLE. 

We  regard  the  essay  of  Prof.  J.  A.  Dorner,  D.D.,  which  he  read 
at  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  New  York,  on  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
which  is  now  a  dogma  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  the  ablest  paper 
we  have  ever  perused  on  that  subject.    It  is  a  perfect  piece  of  mosaic, — 


APPENDICES. 


167 


thoroughly  and  compactly  put  together  by  the  hand  of  £\  master-artist. 
It  does  not  content  itself  with  combating  the  mere  outer  scaf- 
folding of  popery ;  it  is  no  skirmishing  with  small  arms  upon  the 
turrets  and  pinnacles  of  the  Vatican,  as  the  manner  of  some  is,  but 
it  takes  us  into  its  very  centre  and  points  out  every  stone  in  the  decep- 
tive structure,  and  how  and  why  these  stones  are  thus  and  so  inti- 
mately constructed  and  fitted  together  to  produce  certain  ends  and 
results.  As  many  of  the  readers  of  this  work  may  not  have  seen  the 
essay,  we  will  not  confine  our  extracts  merely  to  those  few  paragraphs 
(at  the  close)  which  bear  more  directly  on  the  subject  under  considera- 
tion in  these  pages. 

The  following  are  the  introductory  words  of  Dr.  Dorner,  which 
show  us  at  once  the  spirit  of  the  man  : 

"  It  is  a  righteous  indignation  which  is  felt  against  the  Council  of 
the  Vatican,  that  it  should  sanction  a  dogma  of  such  fearful  and  far- 
reaching  importance  as  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope;  and  it  is  the 
duty  of  pure  and  evangelical  Christianity  to  contend  against  its  doc- 
trine and  life.  But  in  order  to  contend  successfully  we  must  under- 
stand our  adversaries,  must  discern  the  roots  of  the  errors,  which  are 
powerful  only  in  that  they  are  connected  with  great  truths.  And  again, 
in  order  to  contend  as  Christians,  we  must  strive  with  sorrow  and 
sympathy,  with  that  love  which  would  have  our  brethren  likewise  in 
possession  of  the  truth,  and  which  does  not  proudly  exalt  itself  above 
the  communions,  but  is  mindful  of  our  own  infirmity  and  sin, 
which,  manifold  and  contradictory  as  it  appears,  is  yet  fundamentally 
one;   and  it  is  just  so  with  error. 

"  In  this  spirit  I  would  treat  both  parts  of  my  theme,  in  order  that  we 
may  strengthen  one  another  in  the  common  joy  of  the  pure  gospel, 
whose  light  has  been  restored  by  the  Reformation,  fruitful  in  blessings, 
as  the  mother  of  us  all. 

THE   ERROR   OF   THE   INFALLIBILITY   DOGMA. 

..."  But,  nevertheless,  we  cannot  justly  understand  this  powerful 
error  without  seeing  its  connection  with  Christian  truths  whose  cari- 
cature it  is.  We  cannot  master  it  entirely  until  we  clearly  and  purely 
apprehend  the  evangelical  truth  of  which  it  is  the  counterpart.  The 
Infallibility  of  the  Pope  could  not  have  become  a  dogma  without  the 
consent  of  the  bishops.  Why  did  they  yield  ?  not  only  those  who  for 
a  long  time  had  acted  as  mere  servants  and  menials  of  the  Pope,  not 
only  those  accustomed  to  regard  religion  as  a  mere  mechanical  cere- 
monial service,  whilst,  without  astonishment,  they  added  this  dogma  to 
other  dogmas,  yea,  merely  wondered  why  others  regarded  the  matter 
as  serious — but  other  bishops  likewise,  of  more  earnest  spirit  and 
deeper  religious  interests  ?  Why  did  the  German  bishops  particularly 
submit  themselves  ?  At  first,  part  of  them  bravely  resisted.  At  the 
beginning,  they,  not  less  than  the  Old  Catholics,  drew  back  with  horror 
from  this  dogma,  as  a  mystery  of  lies,  which,  after  it  had  secretly 
matured  in  Rome,  suddenly  stepped  forth  before  the  world  with 
shamelessness  and  arrogance.  But  their  opposition  became  weaker 
and  more  lukewarm,  until  at  last  they  capitulated  with  resignation.     I 


1 68  APPENDICES. 

shall  not  acquit  them  of  cowardice  and  fear  of  man ;  but  the  human 
heart  is  deep  and  strong  in  self-deceptions  and  artifices.  The  entire 
episcopal  order  would  not  have  submitted  themselves  with  so  much 
unanimity  had  they  not  supposed  that  only  in  this  way  could  they  pre- 
serve great  Christian  possessions. 

"  (^b.)  This  infallibilism  is  a  machine  well  calculated  to  compel  obedi- 
ence, nominal  and  real,  to  an  appearance,  a  phantom,  of  unity;  but  it 
likewise  renders  the  original  substance  of  Christianity  unsafe  and  un- 
certain, and  robs  it  of  its  internal  redemptive  value.  For  in  accord- 
ance with  this  system  the  substance  of  Christianity  is  essentially  in- 
different, if  only  this  one  thing  is  maintained,  the  recognition  of  the 
formal  authority  of  the  Roman  oracle  (consequently  of  the  Divine  form), 
that  formal  authority  is  thus  invested  with  the  Divine  right  of  pro- 
viding whatever  it  thinks  best  with  the  Divine  stamp  of  truth ;  that  is, 
that  the  whole  tendency  of  modern  Catholicism  is  to  make  the  entire 
substance  of  Christianity  questionable  or  worthless  by  the  form  in 
which  all  value  is  placed. 


"  (</.)  What  is  assurance  without  truth  ?  Error  can  never  give  assur- 
ance of  itself,  but  merely  unsafe,  fluctuating  opinion ;  for  our  spirit  is 
destined  for  the  truth,  in  which  alone  it  finds  its  home,  its  rest,  and  its 
peace.  We  cannot  make  the  truth ;  must  accept  it  as  it  is  and  as  it 
proves  itself  to  be  by  its  ability  to  give  us  full  and  Divine  assurance  of 
itself.  Now  the  Pope  would  make  truth  to  be  truth,  so  indeed  that 
he  holds  and  claims  that  what  he  speaks  is  inspired ;  and  not  only  is 
he  involved  in  the  arbitrariness  of  subjectivism,  but  likewise  all  those 
who  obey  him ;  for  their  arljitrary  will  elected  him  to  be  the  head  and 
oracle  of  the  Church.  While  he  uses  his  arbitrary  will  to  command 
and  govern,  his  Church  uses  its  freedom  to  renounce  freedom  and 
abdicate  it.     Both  are  alike  arbitrary,  both  are  equally  guilty. 

"  (f.)  The  assurance  respecting  Christianity  sought  in  this  way  flees 
from  us.  And  it  is  the  same  with  the  unity  of  the  Church,  as  we  have 
seen.  What  is  the  unity  of  the  Church  without  truth?  It  is  a  formal- 
ism. The  dictatorship  of  the  one  and  the  obedience  of  the  other  may 
constitute  an  ecclesiastical  em]iire  having  the  external  appearance  of 
unity;  but  without  the  truth  and  the  spirit  it  is  a  hollow  mockery,  an 
empty  pretense.  Such  an  ecclesiastical  body  lacks  the  immediate 
communion  of  its  members  with  the  living  God,  and  is  a  dualism 
throughout. 

"  (f.)  How  very  different  that  unity  of  the  Church  which  is  constituted 
and  cherished  by  the  word  of  the  Spirit  and  the  truth !  It  is  peaceable, 
friendly,  and  salutary  to  all  the  institutions  of  nature,  such  as  mar- 
riage, the  family,  antl  the  State.  But  the  empire  of  the  Pope  desires 
to  be  a  spiritual  empire  above  all  States,  and  yet  is  itself  only  a  form 
of  government  indued  with  almost  all  tlie  attributes  of  the  State,  even 
the  power  of  coercion,  thereby  becoming  hurtful  to  religion,  which 
can  only  thrive  in  the  atmosphere  of  freedom,  and  is  moreover  hostile 
to  the  State,  which  is  conscious  of  its  office  and  endeavors  to  realize 
its  own  idea.  For  the  empire  of  the  Pope  is  a  government  which 
would  pervade  entire  Christendom  and  all  of  its  States,  supreme  above 


APPENDICES. 


169 


them  all  even  in  external  affairs;  a  second  State  in  every  .State,  so 
that  it  must  sooner  or  later  come  in  collision  with  every  one  of  them 
that  does  not  submit  itself.  It  is  a  great  error,  as  we  have  seen  in 
Germany,  to  suppose  that  the  State  can  avoid  this  conflict  by  not 
troubling  itself  about  this  Church.  If  the  Stale  docs  not  trouble  it- 
self about  this  Church,  it  will  trouble  itself  about  the  State,  and  ap- 
propriate more  and  more  the  State's  prerogatives. 


"  Since  the  Pope  henceforth  takes  this  position,  a  great  change  awaits 
the  Catholic  Church,  demanding  our  deepest  sympathy.  For  ought 
it  not  to  grieve  us  that  so  large  a  portion  of  Christendom  which  Christ 
has  redeemed  should  again  fall  so  low  as  that,  under  the  name  and 
appearance  of  unity,  the  Romish  Church  should  become  a  despotism, 
the  most  absolute  monarchy  ever  known?  Herein,  likewise,  is  in- 
volved a  rupture  of  unity,  a  dualism,  by  which  the  uniformity  and 
unity  of  the  members  in  participation  in  the  Holy  Sjiirit  is  done  away 
with,  since  the  wisdom  and  will  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  said  to  concen- 
trate themselves  in  one  member,  while  the  others,  called  by  the  Apostle 
Peter  'a  royal  priesthood,'  are  said  not  to  have  their  immediate  part 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  only  through  the  high  priest.  Does  not  this 
renew  the  distinction  of  the  religion  of  priests  before  Christ,  with  a 
boldness  hitherto  unknown  ?  What  a  disunion  such  a  unity  brings 
within  the  body  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  itself!  Christ  says 
that  the  water  he  will  give  is  to  be  a  well  of  waters  springing  up  in 
the  believer  himself  unto  everlasting  life.  The  new  dogma  will  no 
longer  have  the  Holy  Spirit  to  dwell  independently  in  the  members; 
they  are  not  to  have  wells  of  life,  streaming  forth  from  the  mysterious 
depths  of  the  water  of  the  Divine  Spirit  and  word  ;  but  merely  pas- 
sive channels  for  the  water  which  is  to  flow  forth  from  the  Tiber  to 
Rome  to  enrich  the  globe.  What  then  is  the  unity  of  Christians  with 
one  another,  for  which  our  Lord  prays  in  His  intercessory  prayer,  if 
Christian  brotherhood  is  merely  a  communion  in  servitude  and  non- 
age under  an  infallible  Pope  ?  Not  less  painful  is  the  fact  that  this 
dogma  erects  a  new  wall  of  separation  between  the  Roman  Catholics 
and  the  rest  of  Christendom,  not  only  against  us  and  the  Orientals,  but 
likewise  against  the  promise  of  the  Lord  respecting  the  one  fold  and 
the  one  Shepherd,  by  which  He  did  not  mean  a  Pope. 


NOMINAL   PROTESTANTISM. 

"We  have  thus  been  brought  to  the  consideration  of  evangelical 
Christianity.  And,  that  we  may  not  give  ourselves  over  to  ecclesias- 
tical pride,  we  must  not  forget  the  evils  of  nominal  Protestantism  ex- 
isting among  us,  against  which  we  have  to  contend. 

"  Evangelical  Christianity  is  the  frceborn  daughter  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. It  has  reconciled  the  principles  of  Authority  and  Freedom  in 
the* moral  and  religious  sphere.  For  the  gospel  proves  itself  to  evan- 
gelical faith  as  a  power  of  God  ;  the  believer  is  overcome  in  his  in- 
telligence, will,  and  feelings  by  the  spiritual  power  of  redeeming  truth 

15 


170 


APPENDICES. 


in  Christ,  and  thus  has  first  of  all  an  assurance  of  personal  salvation  in 
Christ,  a  subjective  knowledge  of  himself  as  redeemed,  and  then  at 
the  same  time  an  objective  knowledge  of  the  Redeemer,  of  His  Divine 
power  and  grace.  This  victory  of  truth  as  light  and  life  is  at  the 
same  time  victory  over  doubt,  skepticism,  disunion,  and  enmity  with 
God.  In  one  word,  man  by  faith  is  restored  to  unity  with  himself  and 
God,  to  unity  of  Christian  character,  and  that  is  the  foundation  of  all 
true  unity  of  men  in  the  Church.  For  how  could  there  be  unity  of 
the  Church  if  its  members  have  chaotic  and  internally  discordant  ele- 
ments within  their  own  jiersons  ?  And,  on  the  other  hand,  how  can 
lliose  who  are  born  of  God  refrain  from  loving  their  kindred  of  the 
Divine  seed?" 

[After  showing  that  unless  there  is  constant  renewal  of  the  truth 
from  generation  to  generation,  room  will  be  f6und  for  error  and  de- 
parture from  the  simple  truth,  on  the  one  hand  in  the  way  of  an  over- 
valuing of  authority,  on  the  other,  arbitrary  freedom  (hierarchism  and 
rationalism),  he  proceeds  as  follows  :] 

THE   ROMANIZING   TENDENCY. 

"  I.  Alarmed  by  the  abuse  of  freedom,  on  the  one  side,  others  flee 
from  freedom  altogether.  Lest  they  should  open  the  door  to  disorganiz- 
ing arbitrariness,  they  inipriscMi  Christianity  itself;  lest  they  should  give 
room  to  subjectivism,  they  lead  the  way  to  an  objectivism  which  is 
human  bondage.  Church  authority  is  made  the  basis  of  faith ;  the 
symbols  of  the  Church,  and  their  formula,  are  placed  above  the  Bil)le ; 
Church  tradition  is  most  scrupulously  guarded,  not  because  it  is  the 
truth,  but  because  it  is  tradition,  and  thus  there  is  a  zeal  for  evangel- 
ical doctrines  which  are  based  merely  on  tradition.  Many,  who  are 
especially  anxious  for  the  credit  of  orthodoxy,  subordinate  the  study 
of  the  Scriptures  to  the  symbolical  books  and  the  ancient  dogmatical 
writers.  They  are  annoyed  when  the  believer  in  the  study  of  the 
Scripture  shows  the  necessity  of  harmonizing  more  completely  Church 
doctrine  with  the  Bible.  They  are  sluggish  in  the  fulfillment  of  the 
duty  of  the  true  scribe,  in  bringing  out  of  the  treasure  of  the  heart 
things  new  and  old.  (Matthew  xiii.  52.)  There  is  a  tendency,  still 
more  extended,  to  substitute  for  the  ancient,  conscious,  personal  form 
of  piety,  an  impersonal  form,  which  lives  in  shadowy  and  esthetic 
feelings  of  an  indefinite  kind.  This  they  accomplish  by  means  of 
gorgeous  ceremonial  and  manifold  symbolism ;  by  subordinating  the 
preaching  of  the  word  to  the  liturgy  and  the  sacrament;  by  the 
propagation  of  Christianity  rather  by  cramming  the  mind  with  Chris- 
tian material  than  by  leading  to  Christian  knowledge  and  the  personal 
appreciation  of  the  truth  of  salvation;  by  sensuous  forms  and  ceremo- 
nials, to  which  spiritual  indolence  ascribes  the  power  of  pervading  the 
entire  man,  as  a  fluid  with  magical  influence.  And  connected  with 
this  there  is  likewise  an  unevangelical  emphasis  of  the  power  of  the 
keys,  and  a  Romanizing  distinction  between  the  clergy  and  laity, 
which  is  rooted  in  the  unevangelical  doctrine  of  sacramental  ordina- 
tion. This  method,  which  is  a  reaction  from  evangelical  Christianity, 
is  unfruitful  in  religion,  is  unsuited  to  the  needs  of  the  present  age, 


APPENDICES.  jyj 

and  to  the  ever-youllifiil  gospel  and  its  regenerative  powers.  It  is 
related  to  the  present  as  a  peevish  old  man  who  would  carefully  guard 
a  rich  inheritance,  yet  allows  it  to  rust  and  spoil,  because  he  does  not 
increase  it  by  use  and  does  not  continually  coin  and  distribute  the 
noble  metal  of  the  gospel.  The  Church  will  never  in  this  way  pre 
vail  over  the  masses  of  the  people  who  are  estranged  from  it.  Rather, 
this  leaven  of  Romanism  wliich  has  again  been  brought  in  leads  back 
behind  the  Reformation,  of  which  it  speaks  with  unhappy  retractions 
and  regrets,  while  it  takes  away  or  shakes  the  evangelical  assurance 
of  faith,  destroys  the  present  evangelical  unity,  misleads,  if  not  to 
apostasy  to  Rome,  yet  to  weak  effort  to  establish  on  evangelical  soil  a 
miniature  popedom  in  every  congregation.  But  we  cannot  linger 
longer  by  this  foul  stream,  which  now  flows  through  the  Evangelical 
Church  of  more  than  one  land.  It  has  already  been  condemned  by 
what  has  been  said  with  reference  to  the  modern  Romish  Church,  of 
which  it  is  but  a  dwarfish,  inconsistent  copy." 

[At  the  close  of  the  essay.  Dr.  Hitchcock,  Professor  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  in  New  York,  who  followed  in  an  address  on  the 
same  general  subject,  rose  and  said :  "  We  have  all  listened  with 
great  satisfaction  to  the  admirable  paper  which  has  just  been  read.  I 
have  in  my  mind  only  one  living  theologian  who  might  think  to  bet- 
ter it ;  and  that  is  Dr.  Dorner  himself.  The  fault  must  be  our  own  if 
we  are  not  more  firmly  rooted  in  tlie  conviction  that,  in  adding  to  its 
creed  this  new  dogma  of  Papal  Infallibility,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  has  both  erred  and  blundered."] 


cr. 

HE   WAS   NOT   "PROPERLY"    BAPTIZED. 

As  an  illustration  to  what  lengths  men  will  go  who  are  fanatically 
exercised  about  the  exclusive  and  "  supernatural  powers  of  the  priest- 
hood," we  give  the  following  from  a  religious  paper  in  London,  of  a 
recent  date.  The  clergyman  referred  to  was,  of  course,  one  of  the  ad- 
vanced ritualists, — probably  one  of  the  four  hundred  and  eighty-three 
who  lately  petitioned  the  archl)ishop  for  a  regular  permit  to  exercise 
their  gifts  in  the  confessional,  but  against  which  Lord  Shaftesbury,  at  a 
large  public  meeting  in  Exeter  Hall,  in  London,  protested,  saying, 
among  other  things,  "  If  bishops  yield,  and  if  rubrics  are  enacted  to 
authorize,  then  let  bishops  and  rubrics  all  go !  W^e  know  the  Bible, 
and  we  will  cany  it  with  us ;  and  we  know  history,  and  therefore  need 
no  experiment  to  learn  what  debasement  is  made  on  the  minds  of 
dupes  of  the  confessional,  or  the  power  for- evil  it  puts  into  the  hands 
of  confessors." 

The  article  referred  to  is  as  follows  : 

"  The  clergy  appear  determined  to  precipitate  disestablishnien?.  We 
should  have  thought  that  now,  if  ever,  especially  with  the  fate  of  the 


172  APPENDICES. 

Irish  Church  before  them,  they  would  have  at  least  learned  discretion, 
if  not  justice  ;  but  it  seems  that  even  this  very  modest  estimate  of  their 
capabilities  is  futile.  What  might  the  Shah,  for  instance,  think  of  the 
following  unvarnished  statement  of  how  English  priestcraft,  acting  up 
to  the  strict  letter  of  the  prayer-book,  outrages  our  common  humanity  ? 
A  fortnight  ago,  a  little  boy,  named  Arthur  Pickford,  and  aged  five 
years,  was  drowned  at  Seaton,  in  the  river  Axe.  He  was  pla)nng 
by  the  water,  when  he  was  swept  oflf  his  legs  by  a  tidal  wave  and 
drowned.  The  interment  was  arranged  to  take  place  in  Seaton  church- 
yard, but  upon  the  body  reaching  the  place  the  clergyman  refused  to 
allow  any  service  to  be  performed,  as  the  child  had  not  been  properly 
baptized.*  Here  is  the  published  account  of  the  funeral :  '  The  grief 
of  the  mourners  was  heart-rending.  The  poor  mother,  on  looking 
round  and  seeing  the  coffin  being  silently  lowered  into  the  little  grave, 
exclaimed,  in  agonizing  tones,  "Will  no  one  say  a  single  prayer- for 
my  darling  child  ?"  and,  finding  no  response,  she  dropped  upon  her 
knees  and  uttered  a  few  sentences,  which  went  to  the  hearts  of  all 
present,  and  brought  tears  into  every  eye.'  We  are  glad  to  find  that  a 
very  general  feeling  of  indignation  has  been  aroused,  and  that  even 
the  local  journals,  which  are  usually  inclined  to  preserve  silence  in 
such  matters,  speak  out  well.  How,  then,  can  it  be  wondered  at,  it  is 
asked,  amid  the  laxity  and  moral  cowardice  of  late  years,  that  the  laity 
should  at  last  wake  up  to  find  that  the  priesthood  of  this  century  is 
identical  with  that  of  times  called  something  very  different, — that  the 
spirit  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  by  which  the  fires  of  Sniithfield  were 
lighted  and  lively  Christians  burned  each  other  for  the  love  of  God  ? 
Human  nature  is  very  uniform,  and  it  is  natural  enough  that  the  love 
of  power  and  the  efl'ects  of  superstition  and  over-zeal  in  strong  and 
even  strictly  conscientious  natures,  when  encouraged  by  the  apathy  or 
blindness  of  those  most  immediately  affected,  should  in  time  produce 
such  fruits  as  those  by  which  the  public  feeling  is  at  length  aroused." 

FREE  PRAYER,  OR  ONLY  PRAYER  FROM  THE  BOOK? 

An  eminent  and  highly  successful  living  Reformed  pastor  in  Switzer- 
land says,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  that,  "  say  what  we  will,  the  fact 
is  undeniable,  that  the  free  spoken  prayer  is  more  efficacious  and  tends 
to  greater  edification  of  the  people  than  that  M'hich  is  read  from  the 
book  ;  and  especially  is  this  the  case  among  jieople  outside  the  larger 
towns  and  cities.  He  does  not  wish  the  minister  to  ascend  the  pulpit 
without  having  in  his  own  mind  and  heart,  as  it  were,  prayed  and 
thought  over  the  subject-matter  of  his  intended  prayer,  without  which 

*  "  Properly  baptized."  Roman  Catholics  (and  High  Churchmen  elsewhere)  lay 
great  stress  on  the  "  intention."  If  a  minister  with  /tnu  views  of  baptism,  for  in- 
stance, baptizes  a  child,  he  could  not  have  had  the  "  intention"  that  that  child  should, 
through  the  act,  be  regenerated -and  so  the  baptism  would  be  vitiated.  Thus,  an  in- 
telligent woman  in  the  Reformea  Church,  whose  then  pastor  held  verj-  high  views,  said 
to  me,  among  other  strange  things,  "  Since  we  know  what  our  Church  used  to  teach 
about  baptism,  we  will  not  allow  any  minister  to  baptize  our  children  who  has  not 
the  right  intention  on  the  subject."  It  will,  therefore,  not  surprise  anjrone  to  be  told 
that,  on  her  pastor  removing  to  another  place,  she  and  her  family  joined  another 
church,  where,  as  she  supposed,  the  intention  figment  was  believed  in. 


APPENDICES.  1 


16 


he  could  not  feel  himself  in  sympathy  with  the  congregation.  Rut 
having  done  this,  in  a  devout  and  prayerful  spirit, — with  all  the  needs, 
the  trials,  the  sorrows  of  his  members  present  to  his  own  soul, — he  is 
then  best  prepared  to  pray  with  them  and  for  them  most  perfectly,  far 
better  than  to  go  over  a  form, — may-be  a  very  good  one, — according  to 
the  book,  and  that,  too,  the  ever-returning  self-same  one,  and  nothing 
else." 

"  I  have,"  he  continues,  "  already  directed  attention  to  the  fact  how 
many  painful  experiences  we  meet  with  in  the  religious  life  of  our  peo- 
ple, and  how  often  we  find  such  a  reliance  upon  the  heartless  perform- 
ance of  some  outward  duties;  and  in  the  family,  how  often  great  stress 
is  laid  upon  the  mere  observance  of  family  prayer,  with  little  or  no  re- 
gard as  to  ho7u  it  is  done ;  and  hence  many  seem  to  be  well  satisfied 
with  themselves,  because  they  read  a  prayer  from  some  book,  be  it 
never  so  heartlessly,  as  if  that  really  weie  prayer.  And  now  when  the 
minister  in  the  church  does  the  same  thing,  must  these  people  not  be 
strengthened  in  such  wrong  views  ?  I  cannot  withhold  in  this  connec- 
tion a  death-bed  scene  as  being  in  point.  The  child  of  a  worthy 
family  in  the  village  was  very  ill.  The  father  describes  the  case  him- 
self, thus :  '  My  poor  wife  was  so  overcome  that  she  had  to  sit  down 
with  the  dear  child  in  her  arms.  "  O  Lord  God,  shall  it  come  to  this, 
that  this  my  child  shall  be  taken?"  she  sobbed.  "Will  God  chastise 
us  so  severely?  Oh,  Peter,  pray  that  God  would  spare  it  to  us."  I  took 
our  prayer-book  and  seated  myself  by  the  side  of  the  dimly-shining 
lamp,  and,  half  crying,  and  with  earnest  devotion,  began  to  read  a 
prayer  for  times  of  sickness.  "  Not  so,  Peter  !"  she  said,  "  not  so  !  that 
will  be  of  no  use  ;  there  is  nothing  in  that  about  our  sick  child.  Pray 
that  it  would  please  Him  to  let  us  keep  our  child."  I  then  turned  over 
the  leaves,  and  began  to  read  another  prayer  with  increased  earnest- 
ness. "  And  that,  too,  will  do  no  good,"  she  said ;  "  do  pray  out  of 
yourself,  just  as  it  comes  to  you,  but  about  our  child,  just  about  ;V."  I 
rose  up  from  the  lamp,  with  a  heart  full  of  fear, — fear  and  anxiety  for 
the  child,  and  fear  about  the  prayer  to  be  uttered ;  for  in  that  way,  by 
myself  and  out  of  myself  ,  I  had  never  before  prayed.  And  then  my 
wife  sank  down  upon  her  knees,  and  in  the  deep  agony  of  her  soul 
cried  to  God.'  " 

DIVINE  WORSHIP  IN  TWO  CONGREGATIONS. 
[The  following  is  translated  from  the  "  Evangelical  Fefor/ned  Church 
Gazette"  of  Germany,  in  which  it  appeared  as  a  communication  from 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Treviranus,  pastor  of  one  of  the  largest  Reformed 
churches  in  Bremen.  Dr.  T.  was  one  of  the  most  able,  genial,  and 
devoted  servants  of  God  whom  it  was  our  privilege  to  meet  during 
our  first  visit  to  Europe  in  1843.  ^^  now  rests  with  Go<l.  The  reader 
will  doubtless  be  interested  in  the  description  here  given,  and  at 
the  same  time  will  also  learn  how  such  a  sound,  learned,  and  godly 
man  looked  at  things  which  at  present  concern  the  Reformed  Church 
in  America.] 

"  Basle  and  Hamburg !    Widely  apart,  both   nearly  at  the  extremi- 
ties of  the  Fatherland, 

15* 


1 74  APPENDICES. 

"  Where  still  the  German  tongue  doth  ring, 
Aud  German  hymns  to  God  in  heaven  we  sing. 

'•  Wuh  many  differences,  they  have  slill  much  in  common.  Both 
cities,  though  differing  in  size,  are  seats  of  great  wealth  and  trade. 
Both  are  central  points  of  free  States.  The  one  is  an  old  home  of  the 
Reformed  Church ;  the  other,  formerly  at  least,  a  strong  bulwark  of 
Lutheranism,  from  which  so  many  a  passage  at  arms  was  made  against 
the  '  Calvinists.'  Joachim  Westjjhal,  Erdmann,  Neumeister,  Melchior 
Goetze,  who  thundered  against  the  Reformed  from  this  city,  are  not 
forgotten.  But  all  this  is  past  now,  and  a  new  time  has  come.  In 
Hamburg  they  have  become  modernized,  whilst  what  was  beautiful 
and  good  in  Basle  has  been  preserved  and  restored.  Clearly  to  see  this, 
we  need  but  refer  to  the  two  churches  in  which  the  writer  was  per- 
mitted to  be  present  one  Sunday  morning,  namely,  in  the  large  St. 
Michael's  in  Hamburg,  and  in  the  Minster  (Cathedral)  in  Basle.  To 
the  former  we  yield  the  palm  in  respect  to  acoustics,  whilst  its  general 
appearance,  as  well  within  as  without,  with  its  architectural  style  in 
the  time  of  Louis  XIV.,  impresses  one  unpleasantly.  But  the  Swiss 
Cathedral  has  been  restored  to  its  old  beauty. 

"  If  the  architect  could  once  more  return,  he  would  be  full  of  thanks 
to  the  later  generation  which  has  so  well  understood  how  to  purify  the 
thoroughly  harmonious  edifice  from  the  disfiguring  additions,  and  to 
banish  the  old  red  color,  so  that  the  stones  now  look  as  though  they 
had  just  come  from  the  quarrj'. 

"  Here,  in  Basle,  on  a  Sunday  forenoon,  the  beautiful  chimes  called 
the  congregation  together.  The  older  families  of  Basle  have,  for  the 
most  part,  yielded  up  their  property-right  to  their  seats.  Nearly  all 
the  seats  are  free.  In  devout  silence  the  mass  of  the  congregation  as- 
sembled. When  the  bells  ceased,  the  organ  intoned  ;  soon  it  passed 
over  into  a  choral  melody,  and  the  whole  congregation  now  sang  two 
stanzas  out  of  the  excellent  Basle  hymn-book,  li  was  a  devotional 
singing,— praying  in  singing;  and  singing  prayerfully  is,  in  truth,  the 
appropriate  aim  of  congregational  singing.  Here  it  was  disturbed  by 
no  noisy  coming  and  going.  The  soul  became  silent  and  collected  for 
the  prayer  which  the  minister  now  offered.  T/iere  was  no  responding 
coitgregaiion,  no  lihirgical  succession  of  formulas,  but  a  hearty  con- 
fession of  sin,  and  a  believing  calling  upon  that  name  in  whom  alone 
there  is  salvation.  It  was  worship  '  in  the  spirit  and  in  the  truth.'  I 
could  not  help  but  think  of  this  saying  of  our  Lord,  which  the  vulgar 
Rationalism  in  its  day  despoiled  so  often,  until  at  last  there  was  neither 
spirit  nor  truth  in  its  Divine  services  ;  a  saying  which  is  in  danger  of 
being  overlooked  by  laying  such  stress  upon  fixed  forms  and  pre- 
scribed prayers,  yea,  even  upon  the  priestly  posture  of  the  liturgist. 
Then  followed  the  announcements.  Then  first  the  text,  and  an  ani- 
mated sermon  on  the  word  of  God.  All  felt  that  this  was  the  chief 
thing, — 'building  up  themselves  in  their  most  holy  faith.'  This  was 
followed  in  the  usual  way  by  prayer,  singing,  and  the  whole  was  con- 
cluded with  the  benediction. 

"  In   Hamburg  the  sermon    was   preceded   by  lengthy    singing.     I 
opened  the  hymn-book  at  the  number  indicated  by  the  tablet,  but  it 


APPENDICES. 


175 


was  not  the  right  one.  I  looked  into  the  book  of  my  neighbor,  and 
saw  that  they  were  singing,  '  Come,  Holy  Spirit,  Son  of  God.'  This 
beautiful  hymn  by  Luther  was  unchanged  ;  but  the  singing  was  greatly 
disturbed  by  frequent  coming  in  and  rising  up.  There  still  exists  in 
Hamburg  the  bad  custom,  that  women  (appointed  for  the  purpose) 
point  out  seats  to  those  who  have  none  of  their  own ;  these  go,  sing- 
ing out  of  the  open  hymn-books,  hither  and  thither,  and  when  they 
catch  a  glimpse  of  a  stranger  they  take  charge  of  him  and  usher  him 
into  a  seat,  for  which  afterward,  during  the  Divine  service,  the  women 
collect  from  each  a  shilling,  by  means  of  boxes.  The  three  verses 
came  to  an  end,  and  I  again  looked  for  the  designated  hymn,  but  it 
was  still  another  hymn,  and  the  whole  of  '  To  God  alone  on  high  be 
praise'  was  sung.  When  this  was  concluded,  commenced  the  hymn 
'  Heart  and  heart  be  knit  together.'  After  a  few  verses,  the  minister 
entered  the  pulpit.  At  other  times  I  had  noticed  it  as  a  beneficial 
result  of  long  singing  that  the  people  became  hungry,  as  it  were,  for 
the  word,  and  this,  then,  would  in  truth  be  a  compensation  for  it, 
since  it  is  quite  difficult  to  sing  so  long  with  devotion. 

"This  hunger  was  then  satisfied,  for  there  followed  a  decidedly 
biblical,  spiritual  sermon  on  the  epistle  for  the  day.  Rejoiced  and 
edified,  we  left  the  church.  Here  also  there  was  no  liturgy,  but  here, 
as  in  Basle,  the  chief  thing  took  the  most  prominent  place,  namely, 
the  preaching  of  the  word  of  God ;  all  the  rest,  whatever  weight  we 
may  attach  to  it,  is  and  remains  subordinate.  The  word  has  the 
promise,  and  in  truth, — not  the  word  mediated  in  manifold  ways, 
even  although  the  Lord  can  give  His  blessing  also  to  this ;  but  the 
simple  proclamation  that  there  is  salvation  in  no  other,  and  that  no 
other  name  is  given  unto  men  whereby  we  can  be  saved.  The  spoken 
word,  with  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power!  Therefore 
the  member  of  the  Reformed  Church  could  be  edified  as  well  in 
Hamburg  as  in  Basle.  When  on  a  fonner  occasion  I  heard  Claus 
Harms  preach,  and  took  sincere  delight  in  his  sermon,  I  was  still  com- 
pelled to  leave  the  church  with  the  silent  thanksgiving  in  my  heart 
that  I  was  Refomied.  For,  after  the  sennon,  the  minister  pronounced 
the  benediction  from  the  pulpit,  and  then  went  down  to  the  so-called 
altar  (it  was  in  the  afternoon,  and  there  was  no  communion),  and 
sang  the  same  over  again  before  the  same  assemblage.  I  was  not  able 
to  realize  the  adage,  Sitperjlua  non  nocent  {i.e.,  'superfluous  things 
do  no  harm')." 

LITURGICAL   SERVICE,    ETC. 

Luther  went  to  Rome  with  the  expectation  of  finding  there  the 
nearest  approach  to  God  and  a  foretaste  of  heavenly  peace  and  comfort, 
for  which  his  soul  ardently  longed.  "  There,"  he  thought,  "  dwells  the 
Holy  Father,  and  there  I  shall  find  so  many  of  the  holy  servants  of 
Christ,  that  it  must  needs  be  the  nearest  approach  to  heaven  to  be  in 
such  company  and  to  worship  in  those  holy  places."  But  just  the  very 
opposite  effect  was  produced  upon  him.  Never  had  he  met  with  greater 
irreverence  in  priests,  never  with  greater  ungodliness  and  worldli- 
ness  among  the  people.  He  came  home  with  the  conviction  that  it 
was   rather  the  synagogue  of   Satan  than    the  city  of  God,  and  that 


176 


APPENDICES. 


corruption  and  debauchery  dwelt  nowhere  else  so  fearfully  under  the 
cloak  of  religion,  as  in  Rome,  with  all  its  gorgeous  ritual. 

The  writer  has  frequently  expressed  the  wish  to  some  who  are  so 
loud  in  their  denunciations  of  the  "  baldness  of  our  Protestant  Church 
service,"  that  they  might  have  the  ocular  demonstration  of  what  is  to 
be  seen  in  Roman  Catholic  churches  during  their  services  in  the 
classic  home  of  this  Church, — in  France,  in  Italy,  in  Spain,  everywhere, 
except  in  countries  where  Protestantism  has  exerted  a  reformatory 
effect  upon  priest  and  people.  They  would,  like  Luther,  come  home 
with  quite  different  views  and  feelings,  unless  they  had  beforehand  fully 
made  up  their  minds  to  become  submissive  to  all  and  singular  the 
shams,  the  trickeries,  the  mountebankism  of  innumerable  priests,  and 
the  mechanical,  often  most  ludicrous,  often  blasphemous,  irreverence 
and  superstitious  rehearsals  of  Ave  Marias  and  Paternosters.  That 
there  are  notable  exceptions  even  there  is  fully  admitted,  but  that  they 
are  only  exceptions  is  equally  true.  On  this  point  let  us  hear  what  the 
cool-headed,  learned  German  theologian  Dr.  Richard  Rothe  says.  He 
is  writing  to  a  friend  from  Rome,  where  he  had  spent  some  time.  "  I 
cannot  tell  you,"  he  says,  "  how  disgusted  I  am  with  what  I  have 
seen  of  the  worship  in  the  (Romish)  churches  here.  How  any  Prot- 
estant can  here  have  any  desire  to  pass  over  to  the  Catholic  Church 
is  inexplicable  to  me.  It  is  here  (in  Rome)  that  one  only  conies  to  the 
full  measure  of  the  conviction  how  much  reason  one  has  to  be  thankful 
to  God  for  being  a  Protestant  Christian." 

A  writer  in  the  (Episcopal)  Chiarh  Journal o{]>it\f  York  City  says  : 
"  I  desire  to  call  to  your  notice  the  fact  that  we  have  within  the  pale 
of  our  Church  some  Roman  Catholics  in  disguise!  Last  Sunday 
morning  (September  21st)  I  attended  the  seven-o'clock  communion  at 
Trinity  chapel,  and  noticed  the  following  singular  performances.  When 
the  Creed  was  said,  the  congregation  bowed  the  head  reverently  (as 
was  proper)  at  the  name  of  Jesus;  but  what  was  my  surprise  to  see 
several  worshipers  kneel  at  the  sentence,  •  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,' 
and  at  its  conclusion  rise  again ;  and  others  bowed  more  devoutly  at 
the  Virgin's  name  than  at  the  name  of  their  Saviour !  When  the 
communion  had  been  received,  and  we  were  leaving  the  chancel-rail, 
I  noticed  one  man  in  particular  leave  the  chancel-rail,  step  back  a  few 
paces,  and  kneel  with  clasped  hands,  gazing  at  something  on  the 
ceiling  of  the  chancel." 

The  liturgical  service  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  sense  of 
the  oldest  and  best  of  its  writers,  is  deeply  spiritual  and  evangelical. 
But  for  its  frequent  repetitions  of  the  same  forms  in  the  same  service, 
no  serious  objection  could  be  made  to  it.  And  yet  let  any  one  go  to 
most  of  the  churches  in  London  and  elsewhere,  and  all  the  boasted  devo- 
tion of  a  "  rich  churchly  service  in  which  the  people  join"  vanishes 
like  the  morning  cloud.  Instead  of  "all  the  people  praising  God,"  it 
is  a  parcel  of  boys  in  white  frocks,  not  unlike  a  certain  ]irivate  garment, 
rising  and  bowing,  and,  with  the  choir  "up  yonder,"  doing  all,  or 
nearly  all,  the  responding,  singing,  and  praying.  So  in  West- 
minster Abbey,  and  so  in  most  of  the  churches  in  which  I  attended  in 
Europe.  The  exception  to  this  I  found — more  than  anywhere  in  any 
country — in  Surrey  Chapel,  Dr.  Newman  Hall's  Independent  ("  Puri- 


APPENDICES.  ,77 

tan")  congregation  of  four  thousand  people,  where  a  somewhat  abbre- 
viated form  of  the  Episcopal  Liturgy  is  used.  There  all  the  peo])le  sang, 
all  the  people  joined  in  the  service  with  life  and  spirit,  and  we  felt  like 
being  in  an  evangelical  congregation  in  Germany,  where  the  sins^iu-:; 
of  the  majestic  chorals  was  a  liturgical  service  that  lifted  the  heart  u]i 
to  God,  and  made  you  forget  all  the  artistic  flummery  of  "  book,  l)ell,  and 
candle,"  or  of  "  churchly  vestments  with  gold  trappings,  and  bowing 
and  scraping  boys,"  which  so  interests  some  minds  in  ritualistic  places 
of  worship.  And  that  church  in  Surrey  Chapel  in  London,  with  its 
liturgical  worship,  is  composed  of  living  Christians,  made  such  liy  what 
is  sneeringly  decried  as  "  Puritanism"  or  "  Methodism."  Just  because 
the  life  of  religion  was  in  the  people,  did  life  flow  forth  through  them 
from  the  Liturgy.  The  Liturgy  did  not  create  that  life,  but  the  life 
created  the  Liturgy.  Let  us  first,  then,  be  careful  to  have  living, 
devoted  congregations,  and  if  then  there  is  a  want  felt  by  the  people 
for  proper  forms,  they  will  come  to  hand  in  a  natural  way.  But  let  us 
beware  of  thrusting  upon  the  churches  a  ritualism,  even  if  not  objec- 
tionable in  a  doctrinal  way,  for  which  they  have  no  heart,  as  if  this 
would  make  them  a  whit  better.  There  is  a  formalism  with  no  forms, 
which  is  lamentable  enough,  but  in  mulli|ilying  forms  you  set  about  it 
systematically  to  produce  and  perpetuate  formalism.  Let  us  avoid  all 
forced  work,  especially  in  public  worship. 

HOW  RITUALISM  PROGRESSES. 

A  Religious  Order  in  the  Episcopal  Church. 

It  appears  by  some  late  publications  that  there  exists  in  the  Episco- 
pal churches  in  England  and  America  a  religious  order  called  "  The 
Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament."  The  associates  of  the 
"American  Branch"  of  this  confraternity  held  their  Annual  Confer- 
ence during  the  latter  part  of  the  month  of  Jime.  There  was  much 
posturing  and  many  processionals,  and  the  conference  was  opened  by 
"  vespers,"  sung  in  St.  Ignatius'  Church,  New  York  City,  where  Dr. 
Ewer*  is  celebrant,  and  who,  it  seems,  is  Superior-General  of  the 
American  Branch  of  the  Confraternity  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament.  The 
next  morning  there  were  "  low  masses"  every  hour  at  several  of  the 
advanced  ritualistic  churches  in  New  York  City.  At  the  "seven- 
o'clock  mass"  at  St.  Ignatius'  Church  the  celebrant  was  Dr.  Quintard, 
Bishop  of  Tennessee,  who  was  also  figuring  at  Cape  May  about  that 

*  This  Dr.  Ewer  is  the  person  who,  two  years  ago,  preached  some  sermons  in 
which  he  tried  to  show  that  "  Protestantism  was  a  faiUire."  We  have  not  yet  seen 
anything  like  a  failure  of  Protestantism,  but  the  papers  have  lately  informed  the 
public  that  he  was  lecturing  in  favor  of  Darwinism  (that  men  are  descended  from 
monkeys).  So,  then,  if  this  be  true.  Ewer  himself  has  proved  a  failure,  and  a  very 
considerable  failure.  Another  person  of  the  same  order,  a  few  months  ago,  preached 
a  whining  discourse  in  the  West,  about  the  "failure  of  the  Protestant  Church  to 
draw  the  masses,"  and  in  two  months  after  he  was  drawn  into  Holy  Mother 
Church.  Thus  it  proves  the  old  saying  to  be  true,  that  when  men  see  all  things 
wrong  around  the-n,  there  is  generally  something  wrong  in  themselves.  It  is  the 
easiest  (and  poorest)  thing  in  the  world  to  be  forever  finding  fault  with  cvcr>'thing 
and  everybody,  but  not  so  easy  (nor  so  noble)  a  thing  to  render  things  better.  The 
former  class  may  be  said  to  be  moral  dyspeptics,  who  deserve  our  pity  more  than  our 
blame. 

M 


178 


APPENDICES. 


time.  He  seems  to  have  been  the  only  bishop  mixed  up  in  this  mass- 
saying,  and  we  hope  that  some  of  the  evangelical  people  of  his  diocese 
will  endeavor  to  find  out  from  him  what  "low  mass"  means  as 
administered  by  an  Episcopal  dignitary. 

"High  mass"  also  was  celebrated  at  the  Church  of  St.  Mary  the 
Virgin,  and  the  preacher  was  Rev.  Father  Grafton,  S.S.,  J.E.,  cabalistic 
initials  which  we  cannot  interpret.  Dr.  Ewer,  Superior-General  of 
the  order,  was  re-elected,  and  gave  an  annual  address,  in  which  he 
congratulated  his  brothers  that  the  principle  of  non-communicating 
attendance  and  the  vital  truth  involved  therein,  viz.,  that  the  Blessed 
Eucharist  is  a  holy  sacrifice  as  well  as  a  sacrament,  had  been  success- 
fully asserted  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church ;  that  there  were  now  sixty-five  priests-associate,  as 
against  twenty-one  in  1869;  that  eucharistic  vestments  are  worn  in  six- 
teen out  of  forty-one  dioceses  ;  and  that  eucharistic  lights  have  recently, 
and  without  objection,  been  introduced  in  Trinity  Church,  New  York. 

Dr.  Batterson,  formerly  of  St.  Clement's,  Philadelphia,  offered  a 
resolution  to  the  effect  "  That  the  secretary  be  directed  to  forward  semi- 
annually to  all  priests-associate  a  printed  list  of  all  priests-associate, 
which  list  is  to  be  considered  confidential." 

At  the  close  of  this  business-meeting  the  Atiima  Christi  was  said, 
the  prayers  for  the  Confraternity  and  the  repose  of  the  souls  of  the 
dead  were  offered,  and  the  conference  was  brought  to  a  close. 

Nothing  has  been  said  of  all  this  in  the  American  E])iscopal  papers  ; 
but  the  New  York  Imiepoident  "  smoked  it  out"  of  a  corner  of  an 
English  High-Church  journal. 

HOW   THE   LEAVEN   WORKS, 

A  Lutheran  clergyman  writes  to  the  Observer  as  follows  : 
"  Should  any  of  our  readers  be  privileged  to  spend  a  few  Sabbaths 
in  Baltimore,  we  would  advise  them  to  give  two  separate  afternoons  to 
Ritualism,  one  to  St.  Luke's,  the  other  to  Mount  Calvaiy  :  either  will 
do  ;  both  will  satisfy  you  as  to  how  far  men  and  women  can  be  Protest- 
ants in  name  and  Romanists  in  heart.  Enter  Mount  Calvary,  as  an  illus- 
tration. The  head  does  not  call  himself  rector,  but  priest.  Sisters  are 
there  in  black  garments  and  hoods,  with  white  faces,  gloomy  and 
ghastly.  A  font  of  holy  water  stands  at  the  door  on  entering;  banners 
decorate  the  high  altar,  and  candles  blaze  on  every  side.  Here  mass 
is  said,  or  its  full  equivalent.  Mary  is  recognized,  and  prayei-s  to  the 
Virgin,  by  her  full  title  of  Mother  of  God.  Then  begins  the  show,  and 
the  low  chanting  is  heard  afar  off,  very  solemn,  sepulchral,  and  theat- 
rical. Then  enters  the  procession,  the  audience  bowing  and  crossing 
themselves ;  resplendent  banners,  boys  gay  in  white  somethings,  very 
good  imitations  of  genteel  night-gowns,  or  some  other  under-garment. 
The  priests  tread  majestically  forward,  like  theatrical  kings,  mixed 
with  the  boys,  who  seem  rather  to  enjoy  the  fun.  Then  enters  the 
principal  actor,  the  high-priest,  with  sad  face  and  studied  gait,  moving 
to  the  altar,  where  he  kneels,  and  behind  him  the  assistant  priest  pros- 
trates himself.  Then — well,  enough  of  this  mocker)- — this  stuff  is 
called  religion.     We  go  away,  partly  in  disgust,  partly  in  sadness,  and 


APPENDICES.  J  70 

we  ask  ourselves,  Is  this  aping  of  Rome  to  lefonn  the  world  ?  Is  tliis 
the  simple  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  Why,  reader,  it  would 
puzzle  you  even  to  give  a  list  of  the  names  of  the  jmits  of  this  show, 
the  various  garments,  etc. ;  and  yet  we  wonder  that  these  people  go 
over  to  Rome.  We  herald  it  through  the  press.  We  regard  it  as  a 
strange  thing.  The  only  wonder  ought  to  be,  not  that  some  go,  but 
that  any  remain ;  for  in  Protestantism  they  know  it  is  mockery,  and  in 
Rome  it  is  consistent.  It  is  sometimes  asked  by  people  who  are  in  the 
habit  of  attending  their  own  churches,  and  have  no  inclination  to  run 
about,  whether  these  ritualistic  churches  are  well  attended.  We 
answer,  Yes — crowded.  '  Sunday  theatricals'  it  is  called  by  many. 
People  will  have  amusement,  and  Sunday  is  well  observed  in  Baltimore. 
Theatres,  etc.,  are  closed,  and  hence  you  see  the  young  folks  moving 
up-town  to  witness  the  performance  at  St.  Luke's  or  Mount  Calvary. 
Very  recently  an  old  canon,  peculiar  to  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Mary- 
land, was  abolished  at  the  convention  held  in  Baltimore.  It  referred 
to  theatricals  and  other  vain  amusements.  The  Episcopalians  of 
Maryland  can  now  indulge  with  the  brethren  of  other  .States  and 
Churches ;  and,  there  being  wow  no  canon  to  reach  theatricals  and 
other  vain  amusements,  we  suppose  St.  Luke's  and  Mount  Calvary,  and 
others  of  that  class,  can  flourish  without  protest.  Bishop  Whittingham 
suppressed  Mount  Calvary  Church,  on  one  occasion,  for  its  mummeries, 
and  since  then  its  priest  went  over  to  Rome,  and  Bishop  Whittingham 
now  protests  very  justly  against  the  abolition  of  the  old  canon.  There 
may  be  some  connection  between  them." 

THE   USE   OF   THE    LITURGY    IN   CONGREGATIONS. 

After  the  greater  portion  of  this  work  had  already  been  in  type,  it 
occurred  to  the  author  that  an  incidental  allusion  in  regard  to  the  use 
of  the  Liturgy  might  be  misconstrued,  and  hence  he  allows  himself  to 
add  the  following  in  this  place. 

He  would  say,  then,  that  as  matters  stand  now,  each  congregation 
has  the  right  to  have  the  Liturgy  introduced  in  public  worship  or  not,  as 
seems  best  to  it.  We  deem  this  a  most  undesirable  state  of  things,  as 
tending  to  great  diversity  instead  of  uniformity  in  the  public  worship 
of  the  sanctuary.  But  the  Synod  has  so  ordered  it,  and  the  General 
Synod  in  Dayton  has  settled  the  matter.  No  minister,  however,  and 
no  Consistory  even,  has  the  right  to  introduce  that  form  of  worship 
without  the  consent  of  the  people.  The  book  has  not  been  adopted  by 
the  Synod.  It  simply  alloived  its  use.  The  44th  Article  of  the  Con- 
stitution says  that  in  the  spiritual  concerns  of  a  congregation  none  but 
communicants  are  entitled  to  vote,  and  it  implies,  of  course,  that  a 
change  in  the  form  of  worship,  which  is  a  spiritual  concern,  is  to  be 
decided  by  them.  So  it  was  explained  at  Dayton  by  all  who  spoke  on 
the  side  of  the  Liturgy,  according  to  the  reports  i)ublished  in  the 
Messeni^er. 

Dr.  Nevin  says  in  his  pamphlet,  Tke  Liturgical  Question,  "  It  must 
ever  be  worse  than  folly  to  think  of  carrying  any  measure  of  this  sort, 
with  a  religious  denomination  like  ours,  without  its  own  most  general 
if  not  entirely  universal  consent.'''' 


1 80  APPENDICES. 

At  the  General  Synod  in  Dayton  Dr.  Apple  said : 

"  It  is  for  them  [the  churches]  to  determine  whether  they  will  accept 
and  use  it." 

Dr.  Gans  said  :  "  We  owe  it  to  the  people  to  say  what  they  want  in 
an  order  of  worship." 

Dr.  Nevin :  "Are  you  not  willing  to  trust  the  people?  Do  you 
know  better  than  they  what  they  want?" 

Dr.  Gerhart :  "  It  must  be  submitted  to  the  people.  I  am  not  afraid 
of  its  going  down  to  the  people"  [not  the  minister  merely,  nor  the 
Consistory  merely]. 

Dr.  Russell :  "  Let  the  Liturgy  therefore  go  to  the  churches  for 
optional  use  and  trial."     And  similarly  they  all  spoke. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  churches,  as  such,  are  to  decide  for 
themselves  in  this  matter.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution, 
and  also,  as  we  have  just  seen,  with  the  fully-expressed  sentiments  of 
the  representatives  of  the  General  Synod,  which  allowed  the  use  of  the 
Liturgy.  Christian  prudence,  however,  would  dictate  to  a  minister  that 
he  ought  not  to  introduce  it,  unless  it  can  be  done  without  offense  to 
any,  or  at  least  any  considerable  number,  of  his  memliers ;  because  its 
use  is,  in  any  view,  not  essential,  and,  as  Dr.  Nevin  has  said,  the  Re- 
formed Church  got  along  without  a  Liturgy  before,  and  it  can  do  so 
still. 

"INFANT   BAPTISM." 

Professor  Doctor  Luthardt  (Lutheran)  says:  "  Once  when  Jewish 
mothers  brought  their  children  to  Jesus  to  bless  them,  and  the  disci- 
pies  would  have  repelled  them  because  these  little  children  understood 
as  yet  nothing  of  the  matter,  Jesus  expressly  reproved  them,  and  took 
the  children  in  His  arms,  laid  Ilis  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them. 
[He  did  not  say  that  they  were  "under  the  power  of  the  devil."] 
And  why  should  not  we,  too,  bring  our  children  to  Him,  and  feel  cer- 
tain that  He  receives  them  and  gives  them  His  blessing?  It  is  of 
this  that  baptism  is  the  expression."    And  in  a  note  it  is  added  : 

"  Matt.  xix.  13,  seq.  ;  Mark  x.  13,  seq. ;  Luke  xviii.  15,  seq.  Thus 
were  the  discijiles  taught  the  position  occupied  by  children  with  respect 
to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Baptism  in  Church  times  corresponds  with 
the  blessing  then  bestowed  on  children  by  the  Lord  Jesus." — Saving 
Truths,  p.  240. 

"SACERDOTAL   AB.SOLUTION." 

The  following  are  the  concluding  objections  against  a  ]iublished 
sermon  on  the  above  theme,  by  the  Rev.  M.  A.  Curtis,  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  North  Carolina.  The  review  is  frtun  the  pen  of  the  late 
Dr.  J.  Addison  Alexander,  and  is  found  in  the  Prmceton  Rcviexv,  vol. 
xvii.  The  whole  article  is  able  and  thorough,  like  everything  from 
that  remarkable  man. 

"  Our  fifth  objection  to  the  doctrine  [of  sacerdotal  absolution]  is  that, 
as  a  theory,  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  a  system  of  falsehood,  from  which 
it  cannot  be  detached  without  gross  inconsistency  and  arbitrary  violence. 
Among  the  unscriptural  and  dangerous  doctrines  which  it  presupposes, 


APPENDICES.  igj 

or  to  which  it  leads,  is  the  doctrine  that  the  Apostles  were  the  original 
recipients  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  they  alone  had  the  power  to  com- 
municate by  the  imjiosition  of  hands;  that  they  transniiited  this  jiower 
to  their  episcopal  successors;  that  in  every  ordination  by  a  bishop, 
sanctifying  grace  and  supernatural  power  are  imparted;  that  all  who 
are  thus  ordained  priests  have  power  to  make  the  sacraments  effectual 
means  of  communicating  the  benefits  of  redemption,  the  power,  as  even 
Protestants  express  it,  of  making  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ;  that  in 
the  Eucharist  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  really  repeated,  or  at  least  so 
commemorated  as  to  secure  the  pardon  of  sin  ;  that  it  is  only  by  par- 
ticipation in  the  sacraments,  thus  administered,  that  men  can  be 
sanctified  and  saved.  With  the  priestly  power  to  forgive  sins  is 
connected,  on  the  one  hand,  the  necessity  of  specific  confession,  and, 
on  tlie  other,  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  ;  with  that,  the  denial  of 
the  right  of  private  judgment ;  and  with  that,  the  necessity  of  persecu- 
tion. To  one  who  goes  the  whole  length  of  these  error?,  their  connec- 
tion and  agreement  can  but  serve  to  strengthen  his  convictions;  but  to 
those  who  shrink  from  any  of  them,  it  ought  to  be  a  serious  considera- 
tion that  they  stand  in  the  closest  logical  relation  to  the  plausible  and 
cherished  dogma  of  sacerdotal  absolution. 

"  Our  sixth  objection  to  the  doctrine  is  that  it  is  practically  a  sub- 
version of  the  gospel,  a  substitution  of  human  mediation  for  the 
mediation  of  Christ,  and  an  exaltation  of  the  priest  into  the  place  of 
God.  It  is  easily  said  that  the  power  arrogated  by  the  clergy  is  deriva- 
tive and  delegated  ;  that  it  is  God  who  pardons  and  Christ  who  makes 
the  throne  of  grace  accessible,  just  as  it  may  be  said  and  is  said  that 
the  papist  who  adores  an  image  uses  it  only  as  a  help  to  his  devotion 
while  he  worships  God.  The  profession  may  in  either  case  be  honest, 
but  in  neither  case  can  it  avail  to  change  the  practical  result,  to  wit, 
that  God  is  neglected  or  forgotten  in  the  idol  of  the  priest.  Instead  of 
that  dependence  on  the  Spirit  and  the  word,  which  form  an  indispensa- 
ble condition  of  Christ's  promise  to  His  people,  the  clergy  are  invested 
with  authority,  first,  to  decide  what  is  Scripture;  then  to  determine 
what  the  Scripture  means;  and  then  what  is  to  lie  believed  as  matter 
of  faith,  though  not  contained  in  Scrijiture  ;  while  at  the  same  time 
they  alone  have  power  to  forgive  the  sins  of  men.  This  practical 
restriction  of  the  power  to  determine  what  is  sin  and  to  forgive  sin,  in 
the  hands  of  a  certain  class  of  ministers,  as  such,  without  regard  to 
their  character  and  standing  before  God,  is  the  sum,  essence,  and  soul 
of  Antichrist;  the  constituent  principle  of  that  very  power  which  has 
debauched  and  enslaved  the  world;  of  the  power  which  sits  in  the 
temple  of  God;  the  mystery  of  iniquity,  sustained  by  the  working  of 
Satan  with  all  power,  the  power  of  the  sword,  the  power  of  learning, 
the  power  of  superstition,  the  power  of  an  evil  conscience,  the  power 
of  lying  wonders,  a  power  which  has  held  and  will  hold  the  world  in 
subjection  till  the  Lord  shall  consume  it  with  the  Spirit  of  His  mouth 
and  destroy  it  by  the  brightness  of  His  coming.  The  gospel  thus 
preached  is  '  another  gospel,'  and  the  doctrine  which  tends  to  such  a 
practical  result  is  and  must  be  false. 

"  To  such  of  our  readers  as  are  satisfied,  by  these  or  any  other  argu- 
ments, that  forgiveness  of  sins  is  not  a  sacerdotal  function,  that  the 
i6 


1 82  APPENDICES. 

Christian  ministry  is  not  a  priesthood,  that  the  power  of  remission  was 
not  given  to  the  ministry,  that  the  power  of  absolule  effectual  remis- 
sion was  not  given  at  all,  that  the  contrary  liypothesis  is  one  link  in  a 
chain  of  fearful  errors,  and  practically  tends  to  the  subversion  of  the 
gospel,  we  may  now  say  what  we  waived  our  right  to  say  before,  to 
wit,  that  the  doctrine  of  sacerdotal  absolution  is  unscriptural,  dishonor- 
ing to  God,  and  incompatible  with  human  fallibility  and  weakness. 

"  In  the  course  of  our  argument,  and  at  its  close,  the  question  natu- 
rally presents  itself.  What  is  the  Church  to  which  the  power  of  remis- 
sion has  been  granted  ?  how  does  it  act,  how  can  it  be  consultetl,  what 
relation  has  it  to  the  Christian  ministry?  These  are  inquiries  of  the 
highest  moment,  and  the  answer  to  them  is  really  involved  in  the  pre- 
ceding argument.  But  a  direct  and  full  solution  is  not  necessary  to 
the  negative  conclusions  which  we  have  endeavored  to  establish,  and 
may  be  better  given  in  another  place." 

"GOING    BACKWARD." 

This  has  been  a  favorite  expression  with  some  of  our  brethren  who 
hSiWQ  gone  fonvard  pretty  far  on  the  "  inclined  plane,"  as  Dr.  Dorner 
calls  it.  They  justify  this  by  saying  that  the  Reformed  Church  had 
done  so  in  some  other  things, — with  the  Creed,  for  instance,  which  had 
been  greatly  unden-alued,  but  was  no7v  restored  in  these  latter  days  as 
an  authoritative  symbol;  and  so  also  in  regard  to  "educational  reli- 
gion," which  had  pushed  aside  "  wild-fire  fanaticism,"  so  threateningly 
dangerous  in  the  Church  at  one  time.  Now,  on  these  two  little  illus- 
trative references  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words. 

And  first.  When  was  the  Creed  undervalued  in  the  Reformed  Church 
any  more  than  it  is  now?  Was  it  not  always  taught  in  the  instruction 
of  our  youth?  Can  a  dozen  ministers  be  named  in  the  whole  East- 
ern Synod  who  neglected  it  in  this  way  ?  There  were  ?<Qme— foreign- 
ers, perhaps — who  did  so ;  I  mean  those  who  came  from  other  de- 
nominations. The  great,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  our  ministers 
instructed  their  young  people  in  the  Catcchi.sm,  in  which  the  Creed  is 
explained  with  great  simplicity  and  beauty;  not  indeed  in  the  new, 
forced,  and  unnatural  sense  which  is  now  attempted  to  be  given  to  it, 
and  which  was  nt'xrr — I  say  never — before  given  to  it,  nay,  not  even 
in  the  fourth  nor  in  the  fourteenth  centuiy.  And  so  also  in  reference 
to  "  wild-fire  fanaticism."  The  Church — I  speak  of  the  Eastern  por- 
tion particularly — was  but  very  partially  affected  (or  afilicted)  by  ex- 
treme measures  in  and  through  our  07iin  ministry.  Those  portions  of 
it  where  the  evil  was  most  felt  were  acted  ujion  from  outside  of  the 
Reformed  Church,  especially  by  one  denomination  with  which  our 
own  is  so  closely  connected.  It  is  true  that  some  of  our  ministers, 
under  the  pressure  and  force  of  outward  circumstances,  were  in  some 
instances  led  to  adopt  measures  that  were  of  doubtful  expediency. 
But  these  were  rare;  they  were  exceptional  cases.  So  that  this  hue 
and  cry,  started  by  one  or  two  men  and  now  taken  up  at  second  and 
third  hand  by  younger  brethren,  is  really  an  affair  of  moonshine,  or  at 
least  dealing  in  stilted  exaggerations.  I  speak  that  which  I  know. 
I  had  as  good  an  opportunity  of  knowing  the  status  of  the  Church 


APPENDICES. 


183 


at  tiie  period  referred  to  as  any  one  else,  because  of  the  position  in 
which  I  was  then  placed  and  my  frequent  mingling  with  pastors 
and  people  in  almost  every  part  of  the  Church.  And  I  remember 
well  that  a  few  of  the  brethren  who  were  then  sympathizing  with  the 
"  new  measures"  to  some  extent,  thought  that  /  was  too  "  old- 
fogyish"  for  them  (that  was  the  word)  to  be  invited  to  preach  at  their 
religious  meetings,  as  once,  but  who  have  since  gone  "  up"  and  "  for- 
ward"' so  high  and  so  far  that  we  cannot  again  touch  hands. 

No:  our  Church,  as  a  whole,  did  not  greatly  suffer  in  that  direction 
from  within  our  own  bosom,  but  from  without.  She  suffered  much  more, 
1  think,  from  too  much  cold  than  too  much  heat,  and  I  greatly  fear 
such  is  the  case  in  a  degree  to  this  day..  This  was  the  judgment  of 
one  of  our  professors  twenty  years  ago,  when  travelyig  over  Eastern 
Pennsylvania.  When  one  of  the  worthy  but  very  easy  ministers  told 
him  that  the  "  Albrights"  were  creating  some  trouble  in  his  country 
charge,  the  professor  replied,  •'  A  little  stirring  of  the  stagnant  waters 
here,  I  should  judge,  would  do  you  good;  for  you  need  it."  Hence 
the  illustrations  which  some  of  the  younger  brethren  are  so  fond  of 
bringing  forward  to  show  that,  as  in  these  things  the  new-theory  move- 
ment was  for  good,  therefore  it  must  be  good  to  go  back  still  farther, 
is  a  nonsequitiir :  in  other  words,  it  will  not  hold.  The  premises  are 
not  true.  It  is  far  from  being  true  that  the  Church  then  (thirty  years 
ago)  "was  ready  to  fall  over  into  wild-fireism."  It  is  an  effort  to 
"raise  funds  on  a  fictitious  capital."  When  Dr.  Nevin's  tract  on  the 
Anxious  Bench  appeared,  the  feverish  excitement  which  had  pre- 
vailed was  nearly  at  its  end.  That  tract  came  in  good  time,  and 
strengthened  the  sober  and  sobering  second  thought  of  many  in  the 
Lutheran  Church  and  also  in  our  own.  It  did  good,  unquestionably; 
but  it  is  too  much  to  say  that  the  tract  put  a  stop  to  the  epidemic.  It 
had  in  great  measure  run  its  course.  Nor  was  it  all  unmixed  evil. 
Many  who  were  then  brought  into  the  Church  under  the  "  high-press- 
ure system,"  as  it  is  called,  are  among  the  stable,  bright  members 
and  ministers  of  the  Church  now,  some  of  these  in  our  own  Church, 
and  several  even  among  the  advanced  side  of  it ! 

This  "going  back"  is  well  enough  within  proper  limits.  But  we 
have,  alas  !  already  seen  that  there  is  a  going  back  that  tendeth  toivard 
and  into  Rome.  And  yet,  with  all  the  heedlessness  of  ardent  youth, 
sober-minded  men  will  write  and  preach  up  to  us  this  "  going  back," 
in  order  to  go  gloriously  forward  according  to  the  "  law  of  develop- 
ment"— a  word  of  such  charming  sound — and  the  "  law  of  progress." 
Thus  discourseth  a  writer  in  the  Messenger  oi  September  17,  1S73: 

"  Will  not  Protestantism  be  forced,  by  the  law  of  progress  itself,  to 
approach  the  Church  of  Rome  both  theologically  and  practically ;  not 
to  fall  over  helplessly  and  blindly  into  her  rtrms  [of  course  not  blindly, 
but  with  eyes  wide  open],  but  to  cope  with  her  in  the  theoretical  and 
practical  issues  of  our  common  Christian  faith  ?  [But,  my  dear  child, 
old  mother  is  too  old  to  learn  from  you,  and  you  are  very  green  to  ex- 
pect to  gain  her  over  to  you.]  Is  not  ihis  the  only  way  in  which  she  can 
be  brought  to  abandon  her  errors  and  to  yield  to  the  just  and  sacred 
demands  of  personal  freedom  ?  There  seems  to  be  clearly  a  fixed  and 
absolute  necessity  of  going  backward  in  this  case  also,  that  a  triumph- 


1 84 


APPENDICES. 


ant  going  fonvard  in  the  grand  solution  of  the  gigantic  problems  of 
the  last  times  may  follow  as  a  result.  We  settle  no  dogmas  now ;  we 
mean  only  to  suggest  ideas :  let  time  show  whether  these  ideas  are  in 
accord  with  the  law  of  historical  development,  the  law  of  life  and  sal- 
vation to  the  world."  [The  "  dogmas"  are  all  fixed,  like  the  laws  of  the 
Medes  and  Persians,  in  the  Roman  Church.  Time  will  show  that 
your  laws  are  no  laws  at  all,  but  a  mere  ignis  fatnus.'\ 

THE  "DEFECTS"  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE. 

Whilst  the  last  pages  of  this  work  are  passing  through  the  press,  the 
Reforfiied  Church  Messenger  of  December  lo  contains  an  article  from 
one  of  the  professors  at  Lancaster  on  the  late  meeting  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Alliance  in  New  York,  which  claims  some  notice. 

The  criticism  is  presented,  we  are  told  in  the  intioduction,  "not 
in  an  unfriendly  spirit,"  for  it  is  rather  "  an  act  of  friendship  to  look 
at  the  defects  as  well  as  the  merits  of  that  assemblage." 

1.  The  first  defect  which  he  notices  is,  that  "it  failed  to  represent 
all  sections  of  Protestantism.  It  was  predominantly  Presbyterianism. 
Germany  was  but  'partially  represented.'  But  few  delegates,  com- 
paratively, from  that  country  were  present." 

2.  But  the  greatest  defect,  he  thinks,  "  was  the  absence  of  a  Lu- 
theran representation:''  There  was  one  there,  it  is  true,  besides  Dr. 
Conrad,  but  he  "  felt  that  the  Alliance  was  entirely  oue-sided,  and 
could  not  properly  represent  Protestantism;  and  so  he  read  his  essay, 
a  philosophical  one,  and  merely  looked  on."  ..."  Lutheranism  was 
there  only  through  politeness,  not  to  speak  a  great  Lutheran  word. 
Dr.  Krauth  could  have  done  that ;  he  has  already  uttered  it  in  his 
able  work  on  the  Conservative  Theology." 

3.  "Then  the  Alliance  failed  in  representing  what  may  be  called  the 
churchly  side  of  Protestantism."  The  professor  adds  that  he  would 
like  to  see  even  a  broader  discussion  than  this  to  be  had,  and  if  the 
Roman  [Catholic]  Church  would  consent,  he  would  like  to  see  "  Ro- 
man and  Protestant  issues  discussed." 

Now,  as  to  the  first  defect  adverted  to,  we  have  only  to  say  that  if 
"  Presbyterianism"  was  more  largely  represented  than  others  in  the  Alli- 
ance, it  would  seem  to  show  clearly  that  Presbyterians  took  a  more  heart- 
felt interest  in  that  meeting.  Why  were  some  other  Churches  not  more 
fully  represented  (the  Reformed  from  this  country,  for  instance)  ?  Just 
because  they  preferred  to  "  look  on"  merely,  or  even  preferred  to  pre- 
judice ministers  and  people  against  the  Alliance.  Should  they  now 
complain  against  "  one-sided"  representation  in  that  body,  when  they 
themselves,  perhaps,  were  the  very  persons  who  prevented  a  larger 
representation? — As  for  Germany  being  but  "partially  represented," 
we  wish  to  say  that  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  providential  circum- 
stances prevented  some  of  the  most  sincere  friends  of  the  cause  and 
some  of  the  brightest  lights  of  that  country  from  being  present  on  the 
occasion.  Tholuck,  unable  from  bodily  infirmity  to  be  present,  was 
there,  however,  by  a  written  paper;  Dr.  von  Hoffmann,  the  eminent 
Prussian  court-preacher,  died  just  prior  to  the  time  of  the  meeting; 
Tischendorff,   the  renowned  Oriental  Christian  scholar,  became  par- 


APPENDICES. 


185 


alyzed ;  and  some  others  were  prevented  by  similar  causes  from  being 
present.  And  yet  Germany  was  not  feebly  nor  "  partially"  repre- 
sented, taking  all  things  into  account.  Dorner,  Christlieb,  flicdner, 
Krummacher,  Ahel  (of  Berlin),  Boegner,  Prof.  Wide,  Prof.  Dr. 
Kraft,  Count  Benistorff,  Dr.  Zimvtermatiti,  and  perhaps  others,  Mxre 
there.  Surely  this  was  no  mean  delegation,  even  as  to  numbers ;  and 
as  to  intellectual  and  moral  force  they  were  a  mighty  host,  and  their 
presence  was  highly  appreciated  by  thousands.  As  for  the  Reformed 
Church  from  abroad,  it  was  numerous  and  highly  respectable.  From 
France,  from  Switzerland,  from  Germany,  and  from  Holland,  more 
than  a  score  were  present.  Only  from  the  Reformed  Church  of  our 
own  country  (our  own  branch  of  it,  we  mean)  we  had  no  correspond- 
ing representation.  We  feel  humiliated  at  the  thought,  but  especially 
when  we  think  of  the  reason  "w/iy  it  was  not  otherwise. 

As  regards  the  second  defect  referred  to  by  the  professor,  it  is  some- 
what singular  that  he  should  take  it  so  much  to  heart  that  that  side 
of  Lutheranism  should  not  be  fully  represented  which  tinchurches  the 
Reformed,  and,  indeed,  all  other  Protestant  denominations.  In  "that 
great  word"  spoken  by  Dr.  Krauth  in  his  book,  he  coolly  hands  the 
Reformed  professor  and  his  Church  over  to  unchurchly  sectarists. 
And  is  it  for  this  that  the  professor  feels  bound  to  praise  him  ?  One 
cannot  help  being  reminded  of  the  keen  irony  of  the  Apostle  in  2  Cor. 
xi.  20. — But  the  professor  commits  an  egregious  mistake  when  he 
makes  Lutheranism  responsible  for  such  ultra  High  Church  views.  Dr. 
Krauth  would  represent  a  small  fraction  only  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
Germany  and  America  when  combined.  The  separated  Lutherans  in 
Germany — the  High  Church — are  a  very  small  body,  taking  even  the 
five  or  six  different  fractions  existing  there  all  together.  The  same  is 
substantially  true  of  this  country,  although  we  do  not  know  how  the 
case  may  stand  relatively.  But  we  doubt  if,  in  the  separated  body  to 
which  Dr.  K.  belongs  ("The  Council"),  a  majority  can  be  found  to 
stand  by  his  exclusive  views.  This,  of  course,  does  not  concern  us; 
but  it  concerns  the  criticism  of  our  Reformed  professor. 

4.  And  when,  finally,  the  professor  regards  it  as  a  defect  that  the 
"  churchly  side"  in  Protestantism  was  not  duly  represented  in  the  Al- 
liance, and  a  wish  is  expressed  that  the  Roman  Church,  even,  might 
also  be  represented,  in  order  to  have  "  Roman  and  Protestant  issues 
discussed,"  we  cannot  but  marvel  at  his  taste,  as  well  as  at  the  total 
misapprehension  of  the  nature  and  object  of  the  Alliance.  Contro- 
versial discussion, — discussing  prelacy  and  priesthood,  the  Papal  In- 
fallibility question,  et  cetera!  Surely  the  professor  has  mistaken  the 
foundation-principle  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  altogether.  He 
seems  to  have  in  his  mind  a  theological  debating-society,  in  which  all 
the  discordant  elements  are  to  engage  in  a  gladiatorial  encounter. 
And  then,  when  the  fight  is  over,  who  is  to  act  as  umpire  in  behalf  of 
the  multitudinous  combatants?  Most  devoutly  would  we  say.  From 
such  an  Assembly  deliver  us !  and  we  cannot  but  believe  our  friend  in 
Lancaster,  with  all  his  seeming  calmness  and  gentleness,  even  towards 
his  opponents,  would  be  tempted  to  say,  Procul,  O  procul  este,  pro 
fani  ! 

16* 


1 86  APPENDICES. 

THE    BEST    MODE    OF    COUNTERACTING    MODERN 
INFIDELITY. 

Professor  Christlieb,  of  the  University  of  Bonn,  in  Prussia,  read  a 
part  only  of  a  paper  he  had  prepared  on  the  above  subject.  But  its 
efiect  upon  the  thousands  who  heard  it  was  such  that  other  tliousands 
who  heard  of  it  requested  that  the  lecture  might  be  repeated,  which 
was  afterwards  done,  to  the  delight  of  all,  notwithstanding  it  occupied 
two  hours  and  forty-five  minutes  in  its  delivery.  The  efiect  is  said  to 
have  been  overpowering,  and  its  publication  in  book-form  has  been 
requested,  and  it  has  already  been  printed.  We  give  the  following 
brief  sketch  of  its  leading  points,  as  prepared  by  the  editor  of  the  New 
York  Obsei-ver,  who  was  the  General  Secretary  of  the  Alliance.  Prof. 
Christlieb  said:  The  Church  should  eschew  all  methods  of  defending 
her  faith  which  did  not  rest  upon  a  spiritual  and  moral  basis  and  look 
to  the  conversion  of  the  objector.  The  subject  was  divided  naturally 
under  three  heads.  The  first  part  was  as  to  the  encountering  of  un- 
belief in  individuals.  The  best  method  was  that  by  which  the  con- 
science and  the  heart  could  be  reached.  The  inward  causes  and 
effects  of  unbelief  upon  the  moral  character  were  to  be  enlarged  upon, 
not  in  an  inquisitorial  spirit,  but  in  a  sympathetic  way.  It  should  be 
shown  that  faith  and  knowledge  were  not  antagonistic.  Cointe  once 
thoughtfully  paused  before  what  he  called  the  radical  evil  within  us. 
The  morality  of  men  was  •defective.  In  Christ  there  was  moral  per- 
fection, confessed  even  by  Rationalistic  critics.  With  regard  to  the 
best  scientific  method  of  defense,  the  positions  were  the  clear  defini- 
tion of  the  fundamental  articles  of  our  faith  as  distinguished  from  the 
less  important  ones.  In  every  fortress  there  was  a  central  stronghold, 
then  there  was  the  enceinte*  and  then  the  outside  fortifications.  The 
central  position  of  Christianity  luas  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  reconciling  men  to  God.  Certain  positions  were  in- 
dispensable to  this,— our  original  need,  and  the  love  of  God  which 
carried  out  the  atonement ;  the  reception  of  the  word  into  the  heart, 
and  the  regeneration  of  the  believer.  The  enceinte  was  the  doctrine  of 
Holy  Scripture  as  the  record  of  Divine  revelation.  The  outer  circle 
comprised  such  matters  as  historical  investigation  and  philosophical 
speculation.  The  outer  circle  should  not  be  given  up  prematurely; 
but  a  wise  defender  would  withdraw  from  it  sooner  than  risk  the  inner 
fort.  With  regard  to  philosophy,  the  harmony  and  symmetry  of  the 
Christian  system  had  to  be  demonstrated,  and  it  could  be  shown  how 
the  isolated  conceptions  of  truth  outside  of  revelation  converged  to- 
wards a  focus  in  the  Biblical  system.  Without  embarrassing  oppo- 
nents with  such  questions  as  the  positive  and  substantial  results  of 
these  speculations,  what  were  their  main  positions?  (The  professor 
rapidly  sketched  some  of  the  main  philosophical  theories  prevalent  in 
Germany.)  Such  views,  if  impartially  examined,  led  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  faith  of  the  Christian  was  the  only  star  of  ho])e  for  humanitv. 
Let  us  boldly  attack  unbelievers  on  this  their  weak  point.  In  all 
natural  and  pantheistic  systems  the  spiritual  capacities  of  man  were 

*  Encnintf — a  French  military  term,  which  means  the  wall  or  inclosure  of  a  place, 
citadel,  etc., — the  outer  defense. 


APPENDICES. 


187 


sacrificed.  With  reference  to  the  German  general  notion  of  inspira- 
tion, he  would  guard  against  any  exaggerated  theory  of  inspiration,  as 
placing  undue  advantage  in  the  hands  of  opponents.  The  canon  of 
Scri]iture  was  not  apostolically  announced  ;  but  was  it  not  probable  that 
the  Spirit  guided  the  Church  in  the  adoption  of  the  canon  ?  From  the 
inner  spirit  of  the  canonical  Scriptures  the  strongest  proof  of  their 
authority  should  be  drawn.  If  chronological  and  other  disputes  arose, 
it  was  wise  to  say,  in  the  spirit  of  Luther,  "  What  matter,  if  it  does 
not  invalidate  our  central  truths?"  He  wouhi  say,  "  What  cannot  be 
denied  need  not  be  feared."  But  if  criticism  sought  to  invalidate 
revelation,  it  should  be  boldly  met.  The  objection  to  the  resurrection, 
for  instance,  should  be  met  with  the  rejoinder  that  primitive  Christian- 
ity cannot  be  explained  if  Christ  did  not  do  what  the  Gospels  alleged. 
He  would  also  advise  stripping  modern  skepticism  of  the  claim 
of  novelty.  With  regard  to  the  attacks  of  anti-miraculous,  natural 
science,  a  sharp  line  must  be  drawn  between  the  end  and  object 
of  Scripture  and  of  natural  science.  The  latter  dealt  with  things  as 
they  are,  and  could  not  penetrate  into  the  spiritual  and  invisible  world. 
A  stand  should  then  be  taken  on  the  general  harmony  already  estab- 
lished between  Biblical  cosmogony  and  science.  As  to  the  generation 
of  man  from  mere  natural  forces,  the  argument  should  be  drawn  from 
man's  moral  self- consciousness  pointing  to  a  Divine  origin  and  the 
unity  of  the  race.  With  reference  to  the  attacks  on  Christianity  as  a 
social  power,  there  were  two  lines  of  defense: — first,  the  historic 
method,  as  to  tlie  eff'ects  and  spirit  of  infidelity.  "  By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them."  The  proof  that  the  fruit  of  infidelity  was  cor- 
rupt and  corrupting  was  very  convincing.  The  professor  scathingly 
exposed  the  spirit  of  modern  infidelity,  its  shallow  learning,  the  poor 
substitutes  it  afforded  to  humanity  for  the  ennobling  and  sublime  doc- 
trines of  revealed  religion,  and  its  want  of  practical  results  tending  to 
the  welfare  of  man.  In  the  last  continental  war  the  great  task  of 
succoring  the  wounded  and  needy  fell  upon  the  Church.  Christianity 
was  the  bond  that  held  humanity  together, — the  true  conservative  in- 
fluence of  society.  In  fact,  not  only  as  Christians,  but  as  citizens  and 
patriots,  they  must  protest  against  infidelity.  The  second  line  of  de- 
fense was  the  practical  religious  method, — the  actual  proof  of  Christian 
truth  by  the  actual  fruits  of  a  Christian  life.  Narrow-minded  preju- 
dices must  be  laid  aside.  •  This  conference  was  a  practical  proof  of 
Christian  life.  The  Christian  was  the  world's  Bible.  The  strongest 
argument  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  was  the  true  Christian.  The 
best  proof  of  Christ's  resurrection  was  a  living  Church.  Meanwhile, 
the  world  was  fast  becoming  divided  into  two  hostile  camps, — the 
unbelievers  and  the  faithful.  Every  church  and  eveiy  nation  should 
contribute  its  peculiar  talent  for  the  defense  and  honor  of  the  truth,  in 
intellectual  argument,  in  courageous  living,  in  benevolence,  in  love. 

"  It  is  impossible,"  says  Dr.  Prime,  "  to  convey  in  writing  any  idea 
of  the  effect  produced  by  the  paper  of  Professor  Christlieb  of  which 
the  above  is  a  meagre  outline.  The  audience  listened  with  rapt 
attention,  and  at  the  close  broke  forth  into  shouts  of  approval;  great 
relief  was  produced  by  the  singing  of  the  verses, 

"  '  Dear  dying  Lamb,  thy  precious  blood 
Shall  never  lose  its  power.'  " 


1 88  APPENDICES. 

WHAT   IS   TO    BE   THE    EFFECT? 

This  question  is  on  the  lips  of  all  who  have  enjoyed  the  wonrierfiil 
meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  It  is  confessed  on  all  hands  that 
the  Conference  was  attended  with  signal  evidence  of  Divine  power, 
and  that  those  who  were  present  enjoyed  a  revival  of  religion  extraor- 
dinary in  its  character  and  unprecedented  in  its  immediate  usefuhiess. 
So  far  as  we  have  knowledge  from  tradition  and  history,  no  religious 
convention  in  any  period  of  time,  in  any  country,  ever  commanded 
such  attention,  or  so  powerfully  and  instantaneously  affected  the  public 
mind.  It  was  manifested  in  the  Conference,  in  all  Us  sections  and 
popular  meetings,  that  the  people  were  not  running  after  novelties  or 
seeking  sensations.  They  desired  religious  instruction.  The  ablest  essays 
developing  strong  religious  sentiment  and  feeding  the  soul  with  the 
profoundest  religious  truth  were  heard  with  the  highest  satisfaction ; 
while  the  unpremeditated  exhortation,  however  warm  and  brilliant,  was 
regarded  as  a  waste  of  precious  time.  The  people  came  to  learn  the 
way  of  God  more  perfectly,  and  in  hearing  they  found  great  reward. 

On  those  who  enjoyed  the  rare  privilege  of  attending  the  meetings  the 
effect  was  mighty  for  good.  And  the  effect,  also,  on  the  interests 
of  evangelical  religion  in  the  city  and  in  the  whole  country  has  been 
powerful  and  happy.  It  has  exhibited  an  intellectual  strength  and  an 
amount  of  learning  and  zeal  on  that  side,  which  the  free  religionists  and 
other  enemies  of  the  gospel  had  not  imagined  that  truth  could  command. 

And  what  is  to  be  done  about  it  !iow  ?  It  should  be  followed  by 
such  results  as  will  make  it  felt  in  all  the  cities  and  villages  and  rural 
districts  of  this  whole  country.  It  should  mark  an  era  in  the  history 
of  Christian  Union,  united  religious  effort,  closer  relationship  and  more 
ardent  love  among  all  the  followers  of  Christ,  of  whatever  name.  All 
over  the  land  Christians  ought  to  associate  themselves  into  Alliances, 
irrespective  of  denominations,  and  auxiliary  to  the  great  Alliance  of 
the  United  States,  thus  constituting  themselves  members  of  it,  and 
increasing  its  power.  In  all  these  places  such  Unions  will  bring  Chris- 
tians of  many  religious  names  into  harmonious  action  for  the  pro- 
motion of  good  works,  while  by  the  principles  of  the  Alliance  the 
denominational  peculiarities  and  relations  of  all  are  left  undisturbed. 
Such  unity  of  effort  and  prayer,  in  all  places,  will  not  fail  to  give  fresh 
impulse  to  evangelical  religion.  It  would  be  in  the  best  sense  of  the 
word  a  RFA'IVAL.  That  God  would  take  pleasure  in  such  a  i-esult 
there  can  be  no  doubt;  and  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  best  spiritual 
interests  of  the  people  would  be  promoted. 

CHRIST   INCARNATE   IF   MAN   HAD   NOT   SINNED. 

[To  corroborate  what  is  said  on  p.  19,  the  following  extract  is  given  :] 
"  It  is  quite  evident  that  even  had  the  angels  in  heaven  never  re- 
belled and  dragged  men  through  their  temptations  into  sin  and  misery, 
still  He  would  have  united  Himself,  in  some  form,  to  the  human  race, 
so  as  to  raise  it  beyond  the  position  which  it  occujiied  in  Paradise. 
Intimations  of  this  fact,  clear  and  forcible,  abound  in  the  revelation  of 
God;  and  the  nature  of  man  and  the  nature  of  Christ  both  demand 
this." — Dr.  Cans,  in  the  Messenger  of  Dec.  24,  1873. 


Date  Due 

f-AJULTY 

.,.——* 

•«■» 

^ 

•-** 

-«*«*'-'— 

« — 

^ 

